Teen Killers Sentenced as Adults

[Silver]

The sentencing of the two teenaged boys who admitted to the sadistic murder of 18-year-old Kimberly Proctor. The publication ban, that was protecting them as youths, has been lifted - the killers, Kruse Wellwood and Cameron Moffat, were sentenced as adults, both receiving life sentences with chance for parole after 10 years.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9E-8N1GF410

Edited by Catz (Forum Super Moderator): Thread moved from ' Discuss Anything' to here as more suited

[beth]

think it's the right decision, if they're "big" enough to kill someone, they're "big" enough to serve a proper sentence.

[HotelUser]

Yeah I basically hate the Canadian justice system, they should both be in a lot more trouble than this, maybe death sentences.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I see the same left wing nonsense has spread to the Canadian justice system just as it has in Great Britain, the idea that punishment is wrong and that people of sound mind are not responsible for their own actions which they take, rather that the sociological approach is what led them to this; background, gender, race and so forth - which most of us dismiss as complete tripe and rightly so. This case has led to a disgraceful sentence of 10 years which is the sort of thing which goes on day in day out in my country which is opposed by anyone who can rationally think and see the difference between right and wrong - which naturally excludes the ruling elite.

The death penalty should be brought back in the UK and I see Canada is quite keen on it also, over 50% in both countries want it brought back.

[beth]

I see the same left wing nonsense has spread to the Canadian justice system just as it has in Great Britain, the idea that punishment is wrong and that people of sound mind are not responsible for their own actions which they take, rather that the sociological approach is what led them to this; background, gender, race and so forth - which most of us dismiss as complete tripe and rightly so. This case has led to a disgraceful sentence of 10 years which is the sort of thing which goes on day in day out in my country which is opposed by anyone who can rationally think and see the difference between right and wrong - which naturally excludes the ruling elite.

The death penalty should be brought back in the UK and I see Canada is quite keen on it also, over 50% in both countries want it brought back.

i don't agree with the principle of the death penalty (i don't think "an eye for an eye" works at all.) but i'm interested to know whether there is any statistical proof it is effective on the rate of crime?

[HotelUser]

i don't agree with the principle of the death penalty (i don't think "an eye for an eye" works at all.) but i'm interested to know whether there is any statistical proof it is effective on the rate of crime?

Even taking into consideration boys uprisings being terrible they should still be able to differentiate between right and wrong when it comes to raping and brutally murdering someone.

I don't want them in my country. They did something horrible and I would say they deserve to die for it.

[-:Undertaker:-]

i don't agree with the principle of the death penalty (i don't think "an eye for an eye" works at all.) but i'm interested to know whether there is any statistical proof it is effective on the rate of crime?

So you are against the logic of punishment in general? punishment is there both as a pillar of morality (the idea that to do something wrong results in punishment, a taboo we should avoid) and punishment also of course acts as a deterrent - of which the punishment must match the crime.

Now as for data on crime I wouldn't dream of going into it as the figures have been progressively fiddled for decades, but the argument against the death penalty that is often used with the given examples of the United States and its high crime rate simply does not stand up as the United States does not really have the death penalty in operation anymore and is seldom used - thus it does not act as an effective deterrent.


Even taking into consideration boys uprisings being terrible

Which is what the left does and which the courts now do, simply ignoring the fact that if you are of sound mind you are responsible for your own actions and not your parents, your school, past enemies, your friends or your wealth or social status. But this is sadly what we end up with, the irony being that the people who suffer from crime the most (the poorest) and whom cannot escape from it are the ones who the left claim to care about.

As for me bringing in the left, it needs to be brought up because its fundamental to understanding why our justice system fails so many people.

[beth]

nono, i am totally for punishment and i totally agree that they should be punished severely, but i don't think the death penalty is right. i do believe a life prison sentence SHOULD be for life though, not parole ever. and i pretty much believe it should be 24 hours in a cell, no windows, no way out (as in suicide).

i just don't like the idea of bringing more death into the world. i don't think anyone has the authority to take life, so why should a government be any different? i just think prison sentences should be harsher.

[-:Undertaker:-]

nono, i am totally for punishment and i totally agree that they should be punished severely, but i don't think the death penalty is right. i do believe a life prison sentence SHOULD be for life though, not parole ever. and i pretty much believe it should be 24 hours in a cell, no windows, no way out (as in suicide).

i just don't like the idea of bringing more death into the world. i don't think anyone has the authority to take life, so why should a government be any different? i just think prison sentences should be harsher.

So you are against war (in the fact that in war innocent life is taken) and abortion (the fact that abortion is the termination of the life of a human being)? if so, then your principles remain clear and you have a moral case of which I cannot really argue with as easily. If not, well, we'll come to that.

[beth]

So you are against war and abortion? if so, then your principles remain clear and you have a moral case.

i am against war. i am not against abortion as in my opinion it's a completely different scenario, and i know you'll pick me up and say it's still life but from experience, i am pro-choice.

[-:Undertaker:-]

i am against war. i am not against abortion as in my opinion it's a completely different scenario, and i know you'll pick me up and say it's still life but from experience, i am pro-choice.

But that just shows to me that what you said on..


i don't think anyone has the authority to take life, so why should a government be any different?

..you don't really believe that as you support abortion.

They are rather different you are correct, the differences being that abortion is the killing of an innocent human being without trial and the death penalty is the execution of the guilty who have been found guilty by trial via a jury of their peers.

[beth]

But that just shows to me that what you said on..



..you don't really believe that as you support abortion.

They are rather different you are correct, the differences being that abortion is the killing of an innocent human being without trial and the death penalty is the execution of the guilty who have been found guilty by trial via a jury of their peers.

i guess you are right that i am contradicting myself, but they are my opinions and whether they contradict or not that's what i believe. i wouldn't put a criminal to death, but i would put my own unborn child to death. this probably makes me a terrible person, but i believe we should live by our own judgements of self and i am quite happy with my choices.

[HotelUser]

So you are against the logic of punishment in general? punishment is there both as a pillar of morality (the idea that to do something wrong results in punishment, a taboo we should avoid) and punishment also of course acts as a deterrent - of which the punishment must match the crime.

Now as for data on crime I wouldn't dream of going into it as the figures have been progressively fiddled for decades, but the argument against the death penalty that is often used with the given examples of the United States and its high crime rate simply does not stand up as the United States does not really have the death penalty in operation anymore and is seldom used - thus it does not act as an effective deterrent.



Which is what the left does and which the courts now do, simply ignoring the fact that if you are of sound mind you are responsible for your own actions and not your parents, your school, past enemies, your friends or your wealth or social status. But this is sadly what we end up with, the irony being that the people who suffer from crime the most (the poorest) and whom cannot escape from it are the ones who the left claim to care about.

As for me bringing in the left, it needs to be brought up because its fundamental to understanding why our justice system fails so many people.

And if you read the right side of my post you would of seen that I don't agree with that.

[-:Undertaker:-]

i guess you are right that i am contradicting myself, but they are my opinions and whether they contradict or not that's what i believe. i wouldn't put a criminal to death, but i would put my own unborn child to death. this probably makes me a terrible person, but i believe we should live by our own judgements of self and i am quite happy with my choices.

Well at least you'll admit it which is good (and +rep for that), but I would urge you to look into it as I think even you can now see the conflicting nature of the two issues when put next to one another - I used to take the same lines you take (as many do simply as conventional thought) until I looked into it more deeply.


And if you read the right side of my post you would of seen that I don't agree with that.

I'm not disagreeing with you as we both agree. I'm simply picking up on a point you raised and adding to it which many on the left raise in these topics as an excuse in order not to punish those of sound mind who are responsible for their own actions.

[GommeInc]

Seems like a decent decision. We all know capital punishment doesn't work as it is a waste of money and reinstating it for a non-problem is a waste of resources when major crime in most western countries is down (that would result in the death penalty if it was legalised) and crime tends to lean towards theft, GBH and petty crime. Times change and the way crime works has changed, the only problem is the prison and judiciary system which is too lenient on punishment, though that is only important if re-offending is high, but in the UK it is low (may be different in Canada).

Canadian Government Statistics :
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/100720/dq100720a-eng.htm

Seems the crime severity index rose slightly in 2006 and dropped quite a lot in 2009.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Seems like a decent decision. We all know capital punishment doesn't work as it is a waste of money and reinstating it for a non-problem is a waste of resources when major crime in most western countries is down (that would result in the death penalty if it was legalised) and crime tends to lean towards theft, GBH and petty crime. Times change and the way crime works has changed, the only problem is the prison and judiciary system which is too lenient on punishment, though that is only important if re-offending is high, but in the UK it is low (may be different in Canada).

Canadian Government Statistics :
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/100720/dq100720a-eng.htm

Seems the crime severity index rose slightly in 2006 and dropped quite a lot in 2009.

We all know government statistics are fiddled and the books are well and truly cooked, not to mention the fact that nowadays many simply do not report crime anymore as the police no longer patrol the streets as they only appear after the crime is committed despite a large increase in the numbers of police. As for re-offending in the UK, it is high just the books are cooked (again) as offenders who are put on rehabilitation are picked to go on rehabiliation solely for the purpose that they are known to be unlikely to re-offend (see video);


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vl9l-mQJHV0

Now as for the idea that it doesn't work - its a punishment, to be sentenced to death because of their action/s. To be sent to death for the actions you have carried out is the punishment so of course it works, not only would it make killers think twice before carrying out a murder, it would mean that once caught and sentenced they are properly punished [if they are of sound mind] for their role in taking the life of another human being. I'm not saying crime would automatically stop overnight, but it would act as a deterrant and would be a fitting punishment for the most hideous of crimes.

I have to ask, do you think it fair to have a referendum on the issue among many others and let the people decide?

[tardis101]

Okay so another two teenagers turning into killers, well I say either shoot them where they stand or stick them in a cell to rot simples ;) cant say fairer than that tbh.

[GommeInc]

We all know government statistics are fiddled and the books are well and truly cooked, not to mention the fact that nowadays many simply do not report crime anymore as the police no longer patrol the streets as they only appear after the crime is committed despite a large increase in the numbers of police. As for re-offending in the UK, it is high just the books are cooked (again) as offenders who are put on rehabilitation are picked to go on rehabiliation solely for the purpose that they are known to be unlikely to re-offend (see video);


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vl9l-mQJHV0

Now as for the idea that it doesn't work - its a punishment, to be sentenced to death because of their action/s. To be sent to death for the actions you have carried out is the punishment so of course it works, not only would it make killers think twice before carrying out a murder, it would mean that once caught and sentenced they are properly punished [if they are of sound mind] for their role in taking the life of another human being. I'm not saying crime would automatically stop overnight, but it would act as a deterrant and would be a fitting punishment for the most hideous of crimes.

I have to ask, do you think it fair to have a referendum on the issue among many others and let the people decide?
How do you know the books are fiddled with? How do you know the statistics? What are your sources? If these books are fiddled with, then you're in the dark too :P It's not a deterrent as discovered in that other thread, where America barely use it in the modern day and when it was used often it was going up alongside the crimes (and crime is instant, unlike months of waiting for the government to kill someone). Hardly a deterrent, more a waste of resources. If people want to commit a crime, they will (as described in the death sentence thread).

[-:Undertaker:-]

How do you know the books are fiddled with? How do you know the statistics? What are your sources? If these books are fiddled with, then you're in the dark too :P It's not a deterrent as discovered in that other thread, where America barely use it in the modern day and when it was used often it was going up alongside the crimes (and crime is instant, unlike months of waiting for the government to kill someone). Hardly a deterrent, more a waste of resources. If people want to commit a crime, they will (as described in the death sentence thread).

The books are fiddled just as almost everything else is which is published by the government, unemployment figures have been fiddled for decades and still are as are inflation figures along with the sectioning of crime rates (by which they class certain things in differing categories) - I don't believe government because I have no reason to believe government because i'm afraid they lie all the time.

Now you keep saying its a 'waste of resources' - surely what the real waste of resources is 'rehabiliation' which doesn't work as shown with the video above and the work done by Peter Hitchnes (again showing how the figures are fiddled in a certain way to get certain results, see global warming also) along with locking these people up costing money and then allowing them out whilst they commit various crimes until they are eventually caught again which we then spend more money on concerning trials and so forth.

Execution doesn't have to be costly at all.


It's not a deterrent as discovered in that other thread, where America barely use it in the modern day and when it was used often it was going up alongside the crimes (and crime is instant, unlike months of waiting for the government to kill someone).

America barely uses it and has high crime rates.

I know the anti-death penalty lobby like to turn that around and pretend that because the United States has high crime rates, this shows that the death penalty does not work - when infact it is the opposite as it is seldom used in the States.

[FREWIN]

I think that if the party involved shows no blatent remorse for killing then the death penalty should be brought into play. I don't think they should go from the courtroom straight to the gallows but be re-questioned after a while in prison. People may kill and now realise their wrongs, but in some cases they just do not care. These are the ones who shouldn't be allowed.

[The Don]

The books are fiddled just as almost everything else is which is published by the government, unemployment figures have been fiddled for decades and still are as are inflation figures along with the sectioning of crime rates (by which they class certain things in differing categories) - I don't believe government because I have no reason to believe government because i'm afraid they lie all the time.

Now you keep saying its a 'waste of resources' - surely what the real waste of resources is 'rehabiliation' which doesn't work as shown with the video above and the work done by Peter Hitchnes (again showing how the figures are fiddled in a certain way to get certain results, see global warming also) along with locking these people up costing money and then allowing them out whilst they commit various crimes until they are eventually caught again which we then spend more money on concerning trials and so forth.

Execution doesn't have to be costly at all.



America barely uses it and has high crime rates.

I know the anti-death penalty lobby like to turn that around and pretend that because the United States has high crime rates, this shows that the death penalty does not work - when infact it is the opposite as it is seldom used in the States.

Proof or it didn't happen.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Proof or it didn't happen.

I have listed examples; inflation and unemployment for two major examples - see 'real unemployment graph uk' etc.

[luce]

I agree with some other posts on here if they're old enough to kill they are big enough to have their names released. If you take someones life in my opinion you should lose all your human rights and yes I do believe the death penalty works because it not only gets rid of the the psychopaths and sex offenders it deters people like this from committing the crimes because they're just idiots not malicious creeps.

The penal system in the UK is another debate but at the moment it seems like a waste of time and it's disgusting on how much money is spent on something which is effectively failing.

[FlyingJesus]

I see the same left wing nonsense has spread to the Canadian justice system just as it has in Great Britain, the idea that punishment is wrong and that people of sound mind are not responsible for their own actions which they take, rather that the sociological approach is what led them to this; background, gender, race and so forth - which most of us dismiss as complete tripe and rightly so. This case has led to a disgraceful sentence of 10 years which is the sort of thing which goes on day in day out in my country which is opposed by anyone who can rationally think and see the difference between right and wrong - which naturally excludes the ruling elite.

To be fair on this case as a singular event, they have given the maximum sentencing available and noted that rehabilitation for either of them has an extremely low likelihood, so I can't see their parole cases being anything more than a formality. Obviously the possibility of only serving 10 years for crimes like this seems like nothing so yes it's possible that there does need to be reform, but the prosecution in this case has (as far as I can see) done all that they can

That aside, the woman in the /A\ studio is totally good to go

[luce]

last week i had the pleasure of going to a crime conference at school where the person who hosted it was a man on known as a "lifer" on the charge of murder. He served 12 years and is never likely to go back in because i can't see him re-offending. In this case it doesn't bother me because knowing him the crime he committed was actually man slaughter but because he was charged with GBH with intend before the man died when he died the intent made it murder. Anyway this man got out on a tariff of 12 years for killing someone and out of 95,000 prisoners in the UK 45 will spend the rest of their life in there. There is a prison outside Nottingham which houses 1200 sex offenders, they'll all get out. In my opinion life should mean life, i don't care if you've passed your "sex offender" course in prison, you can fake it to get out!

basically in that mess of a paragraph what i am trying to say is primarily once you're in for life you should literally be in for life.

[Josh]

Life should mean life.

But I do not agree with the death penalty. Dan, you were telling Bethie was a hypocrite in page one of this thread and then you said you agree with the death penalty.

You're saying that if you killed someone with intent, you deserve to be killed yourself. So what makes government authorised murder okay? It's exactly the same. Murder is murder.

[-:Undertaker:-]

To be fair on this case as a singular event, they have given the maximum sentencing available and noted that rehabilitation for either of them has an extremely low likelihood, so I can't see their parole cases being anything more than a formality. Obviously the possibility of only serving 10 years for crimes like this seems like nothing so yes it's possible that there does need to be reform, but the prosecution in this case has (as far as I can see) done all that they can

That aside, the woman in the /A\ studio is totally good to go

Well thats what I mean, the system is broken thanks to a political class which has failed but which does not have to suffer the consquences of its failure whereas the electorate, often the worst off, do.

As they say, the law is an ass.


Life should mean life.

But I do not agree with the death penalty. Dan, you were telling Bethie was a hypocrite in page one of this thread and then you said you agree with the death penalty.

You're saying that if you killed someone with intent, you deserve to be killed yourself. So what makes government authorised murder okay? It's exactly the same. Murder is murder.

Because i'm not against all forms of killing/murder as I recognise that in some circumstances killing/murder is inevitable and/or justifiable - if I were against all forms of killing/murder, that would mean that in no circumstances do I think a life should be taken even if my life was in danger or my country threatened by a foreign power. This leads me to ask you, so on those grounds of no killing at all which you espouse - are you against all forms of war no matter what the circumstances and are you also telling me that you would not defend yourself with lethal force if need be?

Somehow I do not think you would stand by that, nor do I suspect you are against abortion.

The difference between murder and the death penalty is that murder is a life taken without need whereas the death penalty is a punishment for those who are of sound mind who have committed the most henious of crimes (such as taking the life of another human being) knowing what the possible consquences for their actions are. We are accountable for our actions before a court of law and a jury of our peers, murder on the other hand does not allow for a trial - it is a cold blooded act.

[Chippiewill]

I'd just like to point out that a death sentence isn't a punishment, it is a deterrent (Albeit an effective one), it does not help the person like a prison sentence, or a fine. Of course, neither does a proper life sentence which I believe to be just as pointless (Since they do not achieve anything by being in jail for the remainder of their life). It does not take a genius to figure out that anyone who wants to kill another person is not right in the head, which means that they cannot be responsible for their actions, the only moral thing to do is to help them with their clear mental problems.

Of course you have the problem of the deterrent but you could just as easily make jail not a fun place to be again. You could even make prisons profitable (And not a burden on the tax payer, perhaps even relief to the tax payer), give them physical labour jobs, start up Britain's older industries that have now since been outsourced, make them grow their own crops, their own food.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I'd just like to point out that a death sentence isn't a punishment, it is a deterrent (Albeit an effective one), it does not help the person like a prison sentence, or a fine. Of course, neither does a proper life sentence which I believe to be just as pointless (Since they do not achieve anything by being in jail for the remainder of their life). It does not take a genius to figure out that anyone who wants to kill another person is not right in the head, which means that they cannot be responsible for their actions, the only moral thing to do is to help them with their clear mental problems.

The issue of somebody being of sound mind is that; in knowing what they did to be against the law and being responsible for their actions. A person with depression for example may contemplate suicide, but are responsible for his/her actions if they decide to take that route (due to the depression they are experiencing). Now obviously with a mental illness such as alzheimers disease for example you cannot put it down to the person as they are not of sound mind, they are not in control.

I think we all too often dismiss evil as a mental illness.


Of course you have the problem of the deterrent but you could just as easily make jail not a fun place to be again. You could even make prisons profitable (And not a burden on the tax payer, perhaps even relief to the tax payer), give them physical labour jobs, start up Britain's older industries that have now since been outsourced, make them grow their own crops, their own food.

Agreed, chain gangs (clearing land, picking crops etc) I believe in fully.

[GommeInc]

I'd just like to point out that a death sentence isn't a punishment, it is a deterrent (Albeit an ineffective one), it does not help the person like a prison sentence, or a fine. Of course, neither does a proper life sentence which I believe to be just as pointless (Since they do not achieve anything by being in jail for the remainder of their life). It does not take a genius to figure out that anyone who wants to kill another person is not right in the head, which means that they cannot be responsible for their actions, the only moral thing to do is to help them with their clear mental problems.
Changed the word for you- see bit in bold ;)

It's not an effective deterrant, people assume killers will read the crime and punishment book and pick out crimes that fit their specifications - "Should I kill today? Hmm, I will check what punishment I will get". If someone hates someone, they will kill them without caring, in any country. Undertaker even says it himself, people are of sound mind when they kill, or at least are believed to be. Besides, small crime is the in thing these days - theft is up as with any "economically unsure" time in history, as is GBH and unruley behaviour.

[Chippiewill]

The issue of somebody being of sound mind is that; in knowing what they did to be against the law and being responsible for their actions. A person with depression for example may contemplate suicide, but are responsible for his/her actions if they decide to take that route (due to the depression they are experiencing). Now obviously with a mental illness such as alzheimers disease for example you cannot put it down to the person as they are not of sound mind, they are not in control.
If someone has been brought up to believe that murder is right then it should be something that people should strive to resolve, not to dispose of. Would you really sentence someone to death if you could make it so that they wouldn't murder again and that they know that they shouldn't, what use is it to sentence someone to death if they aren't going to commit the crime again? Justice?

The death sentence achieves only three things:

- Prevents them from causing harm again
- It is a sense of 'Justice' to the victims
- It is a deterrent

Treatment of a murderer (Whether it is a psychological issue or a beliefs issue) achieves two things:

- Prevents them from causing harm again
- It saves the life of the murderer

Whilst it is not a deterrent, a deterrent would not be (sufficiently) effective on these people in the first place, and you can always imprison the person afterwards as a reassurance that people view it as a deterrent. And you really shouldn't be killing the murderer just so the victims feel a little bit better either. If they cannot be treated then the only harm is that they will be is a small drain on the tax payer for solitary confinement in comparison to the massive drain that petty crime is anyway.