Father 'who beat man to death for molesting his daughter, 4' unlikely to be charged

[Paige.]

how else was he supposed to react? i have no sympathy for the victim and imo the father shouldn't receive a prison sentence

[GommeInc]

Actually you are quite wrong. The purpose of all punishments is deterrence, retribution, reformation and to protect the public. Those who receive the death penalty are usually repeat offenders who can not be reformed. The death penalty serves the other three reasons and also has various other benefits for the government so I see no argument against it.

---------- Post added 14-06-2012 at 04:23 PM ----------



Isn't it down to the Jury to decide so therefore the outcome would vary? Unless there's a clause which would prevent them from going to trial.

True, they get given the facts and the laws, so if he can get them to sympathise then he would probably be considered innocent It depends if he is given a trial by jury, quite a few cases do not involve one - though UK stats are very different to US ones.

[jasey]

Actually you are quite wrong. The purpose of all punishments is deterrence, retribution, reformation and to protect the public. Those who receive the death penalty are usually repeat offenders who can not be reformed. The death penalty serves the other three reasons and also has various other benefits for the government so I see no argument against it.

ah, i missed your ridiculous conceptual thought. an opinion on the death penalty isn't and can never be wrong. my statement would be no less and no more great than yours had you not said that an opinion was wrong which kind of knocks your reputation down a notch. i do ask that you take a look in to the dozens of cases where 'criminals' have been locked up for years, decades even and released later when new evidence spills out showing they never did anything. in countries with the death penalty, they aren't released as they are already dead. in more civilised countries, they are released from jail but have still be wronged. you're very much in the minority in your thought especially for where you live. not many people share your opinion. the only place in europe that even practices capital punishment is the free, fair and lovely nation of belarus. when even russia hasn't dared use the death penalty in over a decade and has it under moratorium, i guess you're left to side with more radical nations in your opinion. let's talk about belarus' reputation and its leader for eighteen years (he abolished the thought that leadership should be term limited), lukashenko:

Belarus has never held a poll seen as fair by international monitors since Lukashenko began his presidency.

Belarus has come to be viewed as a state whose conduct is out of line with international law and whose government is considered to violate human rights.

Belarus has been called "the last true remaining dictatorship in the heart of Europe."

Lukashenko is the subject of sanctions imposed by the European Union for human rights violations.

Lukashenko is quoted as praising Hitler in a speech saying "German order evolved over the centuries and attained its peak under Hitler."

Lukashenko is quoted as being anti-Semitic in a national television address saying "There is a Jewish city, and the Jews are not concerned for the place they live in. They have turned Babruysk into a pigsty. Look at Israel — I was there and saw it myself ... I call on Jews who have money to come back to Babruysk."

Lukashenko is quoted as being homophobic in public address to a German foreign minister saying "It is better to be a dictator than a gay."

alright, i think that paints a clear picture of belarus, its politics and why it is the last place the death penalty is still practiced in europe. fair play, he is clearly not a fit leader — not of the same sound mind that his european contemporaries are. let's go through your arguments for the death penalty, now, mr. graphics designer!

deterrence: that's a nice thought but looking at the fact that china executes more human lives through the death penalty than every other country in the world combined yet has a rapidly rising crime rate i would say that the widespread use of the dealth penalty does little to deter anyone.

retribution: retribution. a moral term. i will get to morals at the end of my post. the death penalty is a vague term, though, and some places in the world give it out for things such as as poaching a protected animal, counterfeiting currency, statuatory rape and even simply struggling and detaining someone.

reformation: i think the site that has your same argument word for word (i daren't accuse you of copying) says it best in that you can't reform someone in to a good citizen if they are dead. it doesn't do much for deterrence, it is past the point of protecting the public and its morality is subjective. how is it a process of reformation? it reforms nothing but the reputation of the practicing nation.

to protect the public: this is your worst argument in the bunch. a criminal cannot be given the death penalty until they are in official custody. the death penalty is not a police shooting a madman on location and on the spot. the death penalty is a legal process and we are more than capable of protecting the public from violent criminals without killing them. it's a symbolic procedure used to feel powerful and moral. it's certainly not powerful. it's very easy to kill someone once you have them in custody. morality is different for everyone but based on the fact half of established governments in the world explicitly ban any usage of the death penalty (bans like this dating, err, back to the nineteenth centry) and a further quarter of all of the established governments in the world either have the penalty under a moratorium or non-usage pact for at least a decade or more, i'd say the moral feeling is pretty strong against the practice.

here's an example of your beloved death penalty in practice! take a look:

oh gosh, did someone hurt her? i hope they got punished for it!


wait, why is she in a prison camp? what did she do? can someone answer?

shows a lifeless body, not gory and would be acceptable on daytime televison but still sad

Show Hide

oops, too late. she's shot to death now. i guess no one hurt her — she was the criminal! what did she do?

ah, i see she has committed the terrible crime of carrying street drugs able to fit in a wrapped towel in a small shopping bag for her boyfriend. yeah, i am so on board that they shot her as soon as possible. it's a mad world! get the perps!

i'll just note the "drugs" she was carrying were confirmed by the same people that killed her as not ever belonging to her. the specific drugs were never released to the public by name. she had nothing that wasn't wrapped in a towel in a tiny bag. it leaves you wondering. at least she had a decent meal of one bowl of rice before they fired a bullet in to her head and took images of it to "deter" everyone!

[The Don]

ah, i missed your ridiculous conceptual thought. an opinion on the death penalty isn't and can never be wrong. my statement would be no less and no more great than yours had you not said that an opinion was wrong which kind of knocks your reputation down a notch. i do ask that you take a look in to the dozens of cases where 'criminals' have been locked up for years, decades even and released later when new evidence spills out showing they never did anything. in countries with the death penalty, they aren't released as they are already dead. in more civilised countries, they are released from jail but have still be wronged. you're very much in the minority in your thought especially for where you live. not many people share your opinion. the only place in europe that even practices capital punishment is the free, fair and lovely nation of belarus. when even russia hasn't dared use the death penalty in over a decade and has it under moratorium, i guess you're left to side with more radical nations in your opinion. let's talk about belarus' reputation and its leader for eighteen years (he abolished the thought that leadership should be term limited), lukashenko:















alright, i think that paints a clear picture of belarus, its politics and why it is the last place the death penalty is still practiced in europe. fair play, he is clearly not a fit leader — not of the same sound mind that his european contemporaries are. let's go through your arguments for the death penalty, now, mr. graphics designer!

deterrence: that's a nice thought but looking at the fact that china executes more human lives through the death penalty than every other country in the world combined yet has a rapidly rising crime rate i would say that the widespread use of the dealth penalty does little to deter anyone.

retribution: retribution. a moral term. i will get to morals at the end of my post. the death penalty is a vague term, though, and some places in the world give it out for things such as as poaching a protected animal, counterfeiting currency, statuatory rape and even simply struggling and detaining someone.

reformation: i think the site that has your same argument word for word (i daren't accuse you of copying) says it best in that you can't reform someone in to a good citizen if they are dead. it doesn't do much for deterrence, it is past the point of protecting the public and its morality is subjective. how is it a process of reformation? it reforms nothing but the reputation of the practicing nation.

to protect the public: this is your worst argument in the bunch. a criminal cannot be given the death penalty until they are in official custody. the death penalty is not a police shooting a madman on location and on the spot. the death penalty is a legal process and we are more than capable of protecting the public from violent criminals without killing them. it's a symbolic procedure used to feel powerful and moral. it's certainly not powerful. it's very easy to kill someone once you have them in custody. morality is different for everyone but based on the fact half of established governments in the world explicitly ban any usage of the death penalty (bans like this dating, err, back to the nineteenth centry) and a further quarter of all of the established governments in the world either have the penalty under a moratorium or non-usage pact for at least a decade or more, i'd say the moral feeling is pretty strong against the practice.

here's an example of your beloved death penalty in practice! take a look:

oh gosh, did someone hurt her? i hope they got punished for it!


wait, why is she in a prison camp? what did she do? can someone answer?

shows a lifeless body, not gory and would be acceptable on daytime televison but still sad

Show Hide

oops, too late. she's shot to death now. i guess no one hurt her — she was the criminal! what did she do?

ah, i see she has committed the terrible crime of carrying street drugs able to fit in a wrapped towel in a small shopping bag for her boyfriend. yeah, i am so on board that they shot her as soon as possible. it's a mad world! get the perps!

i'll just note the "drugs" she was carrying were confirmed by the same people that killed her as not ever belonging to her. the specific drugs were never released to the public by name. she had nothing that wasn't wrapped in a towel in a tiny bag. it leaves you wondering. at least she had a decent meal of one bowl of rice before they fired a bullet in to her head and took images of it to "deter" everyone!

There is absolutely no need for such a rude and patronising response (which also knocks your reputation down a notch) but I shall put it down to your mental state so I won’t hold it against you :-)

I would firstly like to address you mentioning or insinuating if you rather me apparently copying my argument (the 4 factors for criminal punishment) which is a widely taught aspect of criminal law, and is taught as part of the A level Law syllabus so I fail to see how that lessens my argument or in any way lowers my credibility.

Name me two or more recent cases of innocent people (In the UK or any other western country) being persecuted and locked up for an extended length of time… I think you will struggle because it is extremely rare for such instances to occur in developed countries.

I fail to see your reasoning for mentioning my opinion as being a minority. It doesn’t give your argument any more credibility and is also a fallacy.
I won’t discuss Belarus nor china as there are external factors not present here in the UK which make it unfair to use them as examples of the system at work.

To protect the public is a perfectly fine argument. If a criminal is killed, how on earth are they a danger to the public? They aren’t. Admittedly they aren’t a danger to the public if they are in custody, but sustaining their life costs a hefty amount.

The various examples you’ve chucked in at the end are tear-jerking but also irrelevant as I haven’t once mentioned using the death penalty for any of the offences which are highlighted…

I’m glad you replied and I will respond further, but I won’t if you continue with this passive aggressive attitude which is frankly alarming. I understand you have underlying health issues but it isn’t healthy for yourself nor anybody else to take out your problems on members of a habbo forum. I would consult a doctor as you clearly have some issues, medication can also help, I’m sure you’ll be able to find some which can suit your need from a quick Google search! :-)

[jasey]

There is absolutely no need for such a rude and patronising response (which also knocks your reputation down a notch) but I shall put it down to your mental state so I won’t hold it against you :-)

I would firstly like to address you mentioning or insinuating if you rather me apparently copying my argument (the 4 factors for criminal punishment) which is a widely taught aspect of criminal law, and is taught as part of the A level Law syllabus so I fail to see how that lessens my argument or in any way lowers my credibility.

Name me two or more recent cases of innocent people (In the UK or any other western country) being persecuted and locked up for an extended length of time… I think you will struggle because it is extremely rare for such instances to occur in developed countries.

I fail to see your reasoning for mentioning my opinion as being a minority. It doesn’t give your argument any more credibility and is also a fallacy.
I won’t discuss Belarus nor china as there are external factors not present here in the UK which make it unfair to use them as examples of the system at work.

To protect the public is a perfectly fine argument. If a criminal is killed, how on earth are they a danger to the public? They aren’t. Admittedly they aren’t a danger to the public if they are in custody, but sustaining their life costs a hefty amount.

The various examples you’ve chucked in at the end are tear-jerking but also irrelevant as I haven’t once mentioned using the death penalty for any of the offences which are highlighted…

I’m glad you replied and I will respond further, but I won’t if you continue with this passive aggressive attitude which is frankly alarming. I understand you have underlying health issues but it isn’t healthy for yourself nor anybody else to take out your problems on members of a habbo forum. I would consult a doctor as you clearly have some issues, medication can also help, I’m sure you’ll be able to find some which can suit your need from a quick Google search! :-)

Yeah, I'm not in the business of debating when people bring personal things in. Everybody knows — everybody knows — that I'm sick. I'm on plenty of medication. That has nothing to do with my 'passive aggressive attitude' and if you think that post was passive aggressive then I kind of wonder what kinds of real world you live in. Then again, I have been called passive aggressive to an unhealthy degree by other people in the past but it seems that every single person who finds me passive aggressive is someone who has a personal vendetta against me.

Anyways, yes. I was full ready to give you another thought-out and careful reply but I don't feel like debating you because you take clear points I make against you and if they are true in your mind and bother you then I guess you attribute it to the fact that I'm hysterical or mental. I can think. I think a lot and I have many well-formed opinions on many different issues. I said you were a very angry person in my opinions thread ages ago, do you remember? That's an opinion and it's even more well-formed now.

On the topic of the death penalty, I'll answer a few quick things before I eat something but, as I stated, I'm not putting any time in debating with someone who sticks in personal jabs. I don't know where you got the idea that this was about the UK. The original case in question happened in America, Texas to be clear, and my post original post that you found 'wrong' didn't mention any country in specific when I talked about what I thought about the death penalty. I think you are using the UK argument because it makes your retort seem less all over the place. How can you even talk about the principles of the death penalty in the United Kingdom when it hasn't been practiced for almost fifty years? It has never had a chance to enter the modern world. Anything you say about the death penalty in the United Kingdom is light theory at best.

You say you never mentioned the death penalty for any of the offences I posted in my last argument. You didn't. In fact, you didn't mention anything more than a vague attempt at justifying the use of legal execution with an argument you yourself say is taught to everyone. I applaud your usage of your something many students in the UK learn by rote at age seventeen, but the fact is that the death penalty in itself has no boundaries, no lines and no restrictions. It can be practiced by any government at their own jurisdiction. I am against all use of it and clearly you are not all for it either (unless you want to change your argument again) so I guess that kind of sums it up.

This post was a bit longer than I intended but I actually stopped to go eat something before the last few sentences so I had a break to justify why I was replying to this. I figured that it can kind of be like a lesson in thought for you. I encourage you to write a longer argument in reply, but again, I am not going to debate with you given your specific (and vagarious) jabs at my case with psychiatric affliction. You have a lovely morning.

[e5]

They're big on child rape, so I doubt anything will come of this after he killed him.

[kuzkasate]

Good, this is the sort of news I like to hear.

[wiktoria]

if that was my daughter i would've done the same thing. i have no sympathy for the rapist.

[the.games]

Personally I think that the father should be charged. There was no need to kill the man, and this is in my mind a typical story where someone has took revenge on someone else. If you murdered someone that graffiti'd on your front door, you would still be charged and this isn't very different. In a nutshell, he should be charged as he committed a crime.

[Munex]

Personally I think that the father should be charged. There was no need to kill the man, and this is in my mind a typical story where someone has took revenge on someone else. If you murdered someone that graffiti'd on your front door, you would still be charged and this isn't very different. In a nutshell, he should be charged as he committed a crime.

Are you comparing graffiti on your front door with child molestation? Ridiculous.