Tony Martin held in relation to illegal firearms possession
Discussion
Scuffers said:
I still don't get why you think I'm squirming I think I'm being fairly straightforward you're the one that seems to have a problem with me using the straw man argument of Mr Cregan maybe I'll bring another one how about Charles Bronson you know as well as I do neither ever going to see the light of day outside the prison ever again so what's the point in holding him out on the view that they might get parole.
Salvador's convictions are for: Armed robbery; wounding; wounding with intent; criminal damage; grievous bodily harm; false imprisonment; blackmail; threatening to kill.He is a very nasty man, and the best interests of everyone concerned are served by keeping him locked up until he doesn't pose a danger to the general public - and that may well mean he is never released.
But none of the offences he has been convicted of attracted the death penalty even before abolition - at least not in modern times. So are we to assume that on the Scuffers' death-list it is generally those that are looking at sentences unlikely to finish being served before they meet a natural death whilst still inside?
Scuffers said:
exactly what's that got to do with the subject but just as you seem to be interested, none and I don't actually know without adding up as I've been driving for quite a few years, probably more than you have.
Enough to not know without adding up? So you've offended more than once then?Some might even go so far as to say, a repeat (or should that be "repeated") offender?
It's just that....
Scuffers said:
so far as I'm concerned anybody that's a repeated offender and shows no indication of reforming is a waste of a life form an oxygen thef
Scuffers said:
so once again we can talk round for hours and you still avoid the simple answer, and you'll argue that's because there is no simple answer.
ok let's try again, the 16-year-old the Tony Martin shot dead had 29 previous convictions, is that enough?
fok let's try again, the 16-year-old the Tony Martin shot dead had 29 previous convictions, is that enough?
k me Scuffers - you've achieved what I thought was impossible and I do feel dirty... you've got me on the same side as Cloggs and Harding. Barras died and I feel no sorrow for him at all. Would I have wished him dead? No. Let's go and look at a reformed crim - John McVicar, put away for being a very bad man, now a reformed and useful member of society. If you had your way society would have 'rid itself of some vermin'. Again had he died prior to his capture I doubt I'd have shed a tear but you see things can changeeharding said:
Scuffers said:
ok, all you dogooder PC's, here's another one for you.
Just how many times does a convict have to reoffend before you accept they are never going to be a useful member of society?
2? 3? What?
Are you really advocating summary execution on the grounds that an individual shows no prospect of being a 'useful' member of society? Really?Just how many times does a convict have to reoffend before you accept they are never going to be a useful member of society?
2? 3? What?
Scuffers said:
oh dear, here we go again, I asked a simple straightforward question and you jump off the deep end.
is it not possible for you to answer questions or do you have to conjure up something else to avoid it?
is it not possible for you to answer questions or do you have to conjure up something else to avoid it?
Scuffers said:
simple question why not if somebody is no value to the country or to society in general, what's the point in us keeping him alive?
to put a name to this let's pick on Mr Charles Bronson who let's face it we're never gonna let out of prison but exactly how much does it cost us to keep in incarceration for the rest of his natural life, and what risk to the prison officers that have to deal with him on a daily basis?
to put a name to this let's pick on Mr Charles Bronson who let's face it we're never gonna let out of prison but exactly how much does it cost us to keep in incarceration for the rest of his natural life, and what risk to the prison officers that have to deal with him on a daily basis?
Scuffers said:
no more than burglar has heard of the it illegal to burgle somebody act.
so far as I'm concerned anybody that's a repeated offender and shows no indication of reforming is a waste of a life form an oxygen thef
This is what I enjoy about Scuffers' pointless contributions. He shoots from the hip, then is the last to work out the point of what he says. so far as I'm concerned anybody that's a repeated offender and shows no indication of reforming is a waste of a life form an oxygen thef
La Liga said:
atCen do a lot of social research. They've been asking people this very question for many years. The support for the death penalty has been in a down trend since the 1980s. Their research indicates it's now below 50% whom support the death penalty for some offences.
Cant help being pedantic here. That graph does not show what you assert. The downward trend stopped about 2001 and the line has remained pretty static at be tween 50 and 60% since then. The last data point shows a downward blip, that cannot be considered a trendAs you were
Sorry, I hate people messing with the facts
Scuffers said:
ok, all you dogooder PC's, here's another one for you.
Just how many times does a convict have to reoffend before you accept they are never going to be a useful member of society?
2? 3? What?
Useful member of society ? How does one make that determination, we know you are doing on repeated offences, but what about on a wider scale.Just how many times does a convict have to reoffend before you accept they are never going to be a useful member of society?
2? 3? What?
An example, how long does someone have to be on benefits to be determined as not a useful member of society ?
5years, 10years, 20years ? Then what ?
I think anyone who has left school and never worked for 20 years is unlikely to ever be what I consider a useful member of society, but should we kill people in that category ?
Corpulent Tosser said:
Useful member of society ? How does one make that determination, we know you are doing on repeated offences, but what about on a wider scale.
An example, how long does someone have to be on benefits to be determined as not a useful member of society ?
5years, 10years, 20years ? Then what ?
I think anyone who has left school and never worked for 20 years is unlikely to ever be what I consider a useful member of society, but should we kill people in that category ?
Agreed but then you remove from them the benefits. This argument should be about choice; choosing to work, choosing to commit burglary. Choices have consequences - or should do - and we should reap the consequences of our choices and subsequent actions.An example, how long does someone have to be on benefits to be determined as not a useful member of society ?
5years, 10years, 20years ? Then what ?
I think anyone who has left school and never worked for 20 years is unlikely to ever be what I consider a useful member of society, but should we kill people in that category ?
Those who are making comparisons between excess speed (let's assume on the motorway) of an arbitrary number and the intended dispossession of someone else's goods by means of burglary, you're being deliberately disingenuous.
La Liga said:
Scuffers said:
ok if the answer is yes what do you think the result would be if you put it to the public vote on whether the death penalty should be brought back for criminals such as Mr Cregan?
NatCen do a lot of social research. They've been asking people this very question for many years. The support for the death penalty has been in a down trend since the 1980s. Their research indicates it's now below 50% whom support the death penalty for some offences. I have a very limited respect for the general public viz. being allowed to make decisions like re-introduction of the death penalty. On the whole we're a reactionary lot, and there is now an increasing problem of media influence. History shows that often the grass ain't greener on the other side....
Edited by zygalski on Sunday 3rd January 08:07
I don't think it's about killing everyone who isn't pulling their weight. The only career benefit claimant I knew was a sort of pathetic eejit who would probably have been a decent garden hermit in the absence of a welfare state. I wouldn't have wished him dead.
But when someone has endless convictions and doesn't reform what do you do? To just carry on supporting them and hope they pull themselves together seems like a sort of denial of the failure of utopian ideals.
Rehabilitating offenders is one aim of the justice system but IMO protecting the public is a more important aim.
Taking odd statistics from Scandinavia in isolation is unlikely to give you the whole picture or prove that shorter sentences in Britain would reduce recidivism.
But when someone has endless convictions and doesn't reform what do you do? To just carry on supporting them and hope they pull themselves together seems like a sort of denial of the failure of utopian ideals.
Rehabilitating offenders is one aim of the justice system but IMO protecting the public is a more important aim.
Taking odd statistics from Scandinavia in isolation is unlikely to give you the whole picture or prove that shorter sentences in Britain would reduce recidivism.
AJS- said:
I don't think it's about killing everyone who isn't pulling their weight. The only career benefit claimant I knew was a sort of pathetic eejit who would probably have been a decent garden hermit in the absence of a welfare state. I wouldn't have wished him dead.
But when someone has endless convictions and doesn't reform what do you do? To just carry on supporting them and hope they pull themselves together seems like a sort of denial of the failure of utopian ideals.
Rehabilitating offenders is one aim of the justice system but IMO protecting the public is a more important aim.
Taking odd statistics from Scandinavia in isolation is unlikely to give you the whole picture or prove that shorter sentences in Britain would reduce recidivism.
People who cannot be integrated back into society get incarcerated until they die. Simple.But when someone has endless convictions and doesn't reform what do you do? To just carry on supporting them and hope they pull themselves together seems like a sort of denial of the failure of utopian ideals.
Rehabilitating offenders is one aim of the justice system but IMO protecting the public is a more important aim.
Taking odd statistics from Scandinavia in isolation is unlikely to give you the whole picture or prove that shorter sentences in Britain would reduce recidivism.
I'd rather pay for these sorts of institutions than fund our utterly corrupt and wasteful banking system.
I agree. The question is what marks someone out as being beyond redemption?
Fred Barras, who Martin killed had been "arrested 29 times by the time of his death at the age of 16, and had been sentenced to two months in a young offenders' institution for assaulting a policeman, theft and being drunk and disorderly. On the night he was killed, the teenager had just been released on bail after being accused of stealing garden furniture."
Not sure you would ever want to write someone off at 16 but even a solid 2 year sentence then would have avoided this burglary and the shooting, and just maybe given him a good chance to come out aged 18 with some notion that he really didn't want to spend the rest of his life incarcerated.
Fred Barras, who Martin killed had been "arrested 29 times by the time of his death at the age of 16, and had been sentenced to two months in a young offenders' institution for assaulting a policeman, theft and being drunk and disorderly. On the night he was killed, the teenager had just been released on bail after being accused of stealing garden furniture."
Not sure you would ever want to write someone off at 16 but even a solid 2 year sentence then would have avoided this burglary and the shooting, and just maybe given him a good chance to come out aged 18 with some notion that he really didn't want to spend the rest of his life incarcerated.
This thread has really shown up just how incapable the PH crowd are at debating anything sensibly in a joined up fashion.
to go from arresting a 71 year old man for what is no more than hearsay we get to equating points on your driving licence to multiple murderers - that's some leap!
Or maybe fund youth centres to get kids off the streets, and homes for people living on our streets? or even take responsibility for ex-servicemen who have not coped with civilian life?
we as a country are skint, we are running a massive deficit, the national debt is a disgrace, and yet we have run out of space in our prisons at massive expense.
Somebody claimed crime figures are falling, well, please explain if that's the case, why is the prison population at all time highs then?
this is just another symptom of our societies inability to make proper hard decisions, this covers everything from lack of balls to build (Nuc) power stations and maintain the national grid, and lack of road building and maintenance to stupidly high levels of immigration putting pressure on everything from wages to the NHS and schools.
Yes, in an ideal world nobody would be a criminal, or we could rehabilitate everyone that is, the reality is some people are just worthless scum that are never going to reform and be a productive member of society.
our collective inability to deal with all this is what is dragging this country down and eventually will end up with massive divides and likely civil unrest eventually.
Back to burglary, we are already starting to see so called gated-Communities, why do you think that is?
Oh, and for the record, I don't believe being on benefits is a criminal offence.
to go from arresting a 71 year old man for what is no more than hearsay we get to equating points on your driving licence to multiple murderers - that's some leap!
zygalski said:
People who cannot be integrated back into society get incarcerated until they die. Simple.
I'd rather pay for these sorts of institutions than fund our utterly corrupt and wasteful banking system.
Here's a question for you, would you rather fund some scumbag in prison for the rest of his life or care for the elderly so they don't freeze to death over the winter?I'd rather pay for these sorts of institutions than fund our utterly corrupt and wasteful banking system.
Or maybe fund youth centres to get kids off the streets, and homes for people living on our streets? or even take responsibility for ex-servicemen who have not coped with civilian life?
we as a country are skint, we are running a massive deficit, the national debt is a disgrace, and yet we have run out of space in our prisons at massive expense.
Somebody claimed crime figures are falling, well, please explain if that's the case, why is the prison population at all time highs then?
this is just another symptom of our societies inability to make proper hard decisions, this covers everything from lack of balls to build (Nuc) power stations and maintain the national grid, and lack of road building and maintenance to stupidly high levels of immigration putting pressure on everything from wages to the NHS and schools.
Yes, in an ideal world nobody would be a criminal, or we could rehabilitate everyone that is, the reality is some people are just worthless scum that are never going to reform and be a productive member of society.
our collective inability to deal with all this is what is dragging this country down and eventually will end up with massive divides and likely civil unrest eventually.
Back to burglary, we are already starting to see so called gated-Communities, why do you think that is?
Oh, and for the record, I don't believe being on benefits is a criminal offence.
zygalski said:
I see you totally ignored my point about just how unpopular the death penalty was in this country in the decade or so prior to its abolition.
Oh, I'm sorry, are you feeling left out?As with most polls, a lot depends on what the question is.
if the question was:
"do you support the death penalty for criminals that are serving full life terms?"
or
"do you support the death penalty for repeated child sex offenders?"
or
"do you support the death penalty for criminals that have kill Police officers?"
I suspect the answer would be somewhat different.
Scuffers said:
This thread has really shown up just how incapable the PH crowd are at debating anything sensibly in a joined up fashion.
Scuffers said:
Oh, and for the record, I don't believe being on benefits is a criminal offence.
It isn't, but that wasn't what you were saying, your criteria for being allowed to live was being a useful member of society was it not ?FredClogs said:
Arguing in favour of capital punishment is one thing, arguing that it should be carried out in an extra judicial fashion on an ad hoc basis by weirdo gentlemen farmers with illegally held firearms is another thing all together.
if your stupid enough to have 29 convictions by 16, and the day after getting out of an institution, you go and break into an isolated farm house, I'm sorry, your clearly too stupid to live.I'm actually not in favour of the public being armed like the US, however, being able to defend oneself in your own home is right up there so far as I am concerned.
making the distinction that it was illegal for him to have a shotgun is irrelevant, shotguns are legal in the UK, his issue was his was unlicensed (I'm guessing here but I assume PC Plod had something to do with him not having a licence).
By coincidence I was watching one of the Dirty Harry films last night and was slightly reminded of this exchange:
The difficulty is there are plenty of things about the death penalty that are far from perfect, at least in the countries that still enforce it that don't leave me entirely comfortable with that either, so until you're going to let the likes of Scuffers and AJS go all Death Wish on the (not yet convicted) criminals the best option we have right now is still prison for those where there's no prospect of rehabilitation.
Dirty Harry Film said:
Harry : What I can’t understand is why you of all people?
Briggs : A hundred years ago in this city, people did the same thing. History justified the vigilantes, we’re no different. Anyone who threatens the security of the people will be executed. Evil for evil, Harry. Retribution.
Harry : That’s just fine, But how does murder fit in? When the police start becoming their own executioners where’s it going to end, Briggs? Pretty soon you start executing people for jaywalking. And executing people for traffic violations. Then you end up executing your neighbor because the dog pisses on your lawn.
Briggs : There isn’t one man that we’ve killed that didn’t deserve what was coming to him.
Harry : Yes there is. Charlie McCoy.
Briggs : What would you have done.
Harry : I would have upheld the law.
Briggs : What the hell do you know about the law? You’re a great cop, Harry. You had a chance to join the team, but you’d rather stick to the system.
Harry : Briggs, I hate the goddam system. But until someone comes along with some changes that make sense, I’ll stick with it.
There are plenty of people I would shed no sleep over, people like Cregan are where I can honestly say I don't think I can see a benefit in keeping them alive.Briggs : A hundred years ago in this city, people did the same thing. History justified the vigilantes, we’re no different. Anyone who threatens the security of the people will be executed. Evil for evil, Harry. Retribution.
Harry : That’s just fine, But how does murder fit in? When the police start becoming their own executioners where’s it going to end, Briggs? Pretty soon you start executing people for jaywalking. And executing people for traffic violations. Then you end up executing your neighbor because the dog pisses on your lawn.
Briggs : There isn’t one man that we’ve killed that didn’t deserve what was coming to him.
Harry : Yes there is. Charlie McCoy.
Briggs : What would you have done.
Harry : I would have upheld the law.
Briggs : What the hell do you know about the law? You’re a great cop, Harry. You had a chance to join the team, but you’d rather stick to the system.
Harry : Briggs, I hate the goddam system. But until someone comes along with some changes that make sense, I’ll stick with it.
The difficulty is there are plenty of things about the death penalty that are far from perfect, at least in the countries that still enforce it that don't leave me entirely comfortable with that either, so until you're going to let the likes of Scuffers and AJS go all Death Wish on the (not yet convicted) criminals the best option we have right now is still prison for those where there's no prospect of rehabilitation.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff