Jump to content

I feel sorry for this chap, I really do.


TIGHTCHOKE
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, henry d said:

So why not motoring offences, why just thieves?

The costs would spiral due to large numbers of families and dependents requiring government benefits and/or assistance, and you seem to think that it would prevent others offending and it hasn't been the case for as long as the world has had a penal system.

Execution it is then!:w00t:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 137
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

9 hours ago, henry d said:

So why not motoring offences, why just thieves?

The costs would spiral due to large numbers of families and dependents requiring government benefits and/or assistance, and you seem to think that it would prevent others offending and it hasn't been the case for as long as the world has had a penal system.

If you can't see the difference between someone who drifts over the speed limit and someone who is on their 3rd burglary conviction, there's no help for you, are you really saying you don't see the difference between someone who accidentally does 5mph over the speed limit and someone who intentionally breaks into someone's house and ransacks the place, gets caught and continues again and again? Or are you just trying to deflect the obvious, which is that their are good people who sometimes do little wrongs and then there are just rotten people who should never get out of prison. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

If you can't see the difference between someone who drifts over the speed limit and someone who is on their 3rd burglary conviction, there's no help for you, are you really saying you don't see the difference between someone who accidentally does 5mph over the speed limit and someone who intentionally breaks into someone's house and ransacks the place, gets caught and continues again and again? Or are you just trying to deflect the obvious, which is that their are good people who sometimes do little wrongs and then there are just rotten people who should never get out of prison. 

Your right of course regarding those who drift over the speed limit but what about those that speed as a matter of course. Those who choose to break the speed limits on a routine and daily basis, how should they be dealt with? Are they in the same bracket as those who continually commit burglary?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, oowee said:

Your right of course regarding those who drift over the speed limit but what about those that speed as a matter of course. Those who choose to break the speed limits on a routine and daily basis, how should they be dealt with? Are they in the same bracket as those who continually commit burglary?

 

 

You have indiatable and non indictable offences, which would sort the serious and less serious offenders out, coupled with those who spend their entire lives banged up and being released, doing nothing productive other than causing misery to decent, hard working folk. They are the people who should be removed from society, not Mrs Miggins drifting over the limit, there's an obvious difference. Henry is trying to be clever. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, oowee said:

Your right of course regarding those who drift over the speed limit but what about those that speed as a matter of course. Those who choose to break the speed limits on a routine and daily basis, how should they be dealt with? Are they in the same bracket as those who continually commit burglary   ?   

I actually know of one Mother who 'took the rap' for her precious Son, to save his licence after his 4th. speed camera offence, I only hope he manages to live long enough to thank her  !

 

Take their licence away for a substantial period of time, not just 6 or 9 months. My Grandson passed his test the week before Christmas, I reminded him just how difficult it was to get his Full Licence, then added that it was easy to lose it. Rather tongue in cheek really  ! 

Edited by Westley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My father in law was a barrister then a judge. As a prosecutor one of his favourite simple convictions was for a guy who had written off his Porsche and in doing so catastrophically injured a man in another vehicle in the early 90s. There was very limited forensic evidence and no direct witnesses. The man denied everything saying the other car pulled out in front of him. Two people had seen the Porsche driving at excess speeds earlier in the journey. CPS decided to prosecute and my father in law was assigned. He warmed up the defendant with some arbitrary Q&A then asked him:

“Are the witnesses correct that you were speeding on The Old Chester Road?”

”No, I was not speeding”

”But you were speeding at some points in the journey?” 

“No”

”So, do you ever speed?”

”No, never”

”Can I remind you that you are under oath? You have said that you have never broken the speed limit, are you prepared to testify that you are telling the truth?” 

“.... yes”. 

Poor defendant was snookered by his own inability to admit that we all break laws occasionally, but we discount the impact of doing so. No long standing driver could be believed if they testified that they had never broken a speed limit. 

We judge ourselves lightly and others harshly, it’s human nature.

Edited by WalkedUp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

You have indiatable and non indictable offences, which would sort the serious and less serious offenders out, coupled with those who spend their entire lives banged up and being released, doing nothing productive other than causing misery to decent, hard working folk. They are the people who should be removed from society, not Mrs Miggins drifting over the limit, there's an obvious difference. Henry is trying to be clever. 

Agreed we are not talking about the Mr Miggins casual speed drifter.

We are talking of the continual reckless, career speeder that has no concern for the lives of others. The speeder that continues to risk the lives of others until the point that they themselves are killed or they kill another. Rather like the career burglar they have no regard for the law or for others. The deterrents that exist simply do not get to the root cause of the issue and another course of action is called for. 

Removing them from society might be one way to do it but as you say some can make a valued contribution to society. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

You have indiatable and non indictable offences, which would sort the serious and less serious offenders out, coupled with those who spend their entire lives banged up and being released, doing nothing productive other than causing misery to decent, hard working folk. They are the people who should be removed from society, not Mrs Miggins drifting over the limit, there's an obvious difference. Henry is trying to be clever. 

No, the law is the law, why should theft be three strikes and motoring offences not? If there is B&W fair enough but if there are grey areas then there needs to be a sliding scale. Motorists are given a choice of awareness courses or face the consequence and you need to ask yourself why?

Simply it is the fact that the majority do speed but the system can't deal with those numbers, yet for lower numbers of thefts per capita people suggest a three strikes or removal of hands system, I'm not sure of the ethics behind such thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, WalkedUp said:

My father in law was a barrister then a judge. As a prosecutor one of his favourite simple convictions was for a guy who had written off his Porsche and in doing so catastrophically injured a man in another vehicle in the early 90s. There was very limited forensic evidence and no direct witnesses. The man denied everything saying the other car pulled out in front of him. Two people had seen the Porsche driving at excess speeds earlier in the journey. CPS decided to prosecute and my father in law was assigned. He warmed up the defendant with some arbitrary Q&A then asked him:

“Are the witnesses correct that you were speeding on The Old Chester Road?”

”No, I was not speeding”

”But you were speeding at some points in the journey?” 

“No”

”So, do you ever speed?”

”No, never”

”Can I remind you that you are under oath? You have said that you have never broken the speed limit, are you prepared to testify that you are telling the truth?” 

“.... yes”. 

Poor defendant was snookered by his own inability to admit that we all break laws occasionally, but we discount the impact of doing so. No long standing driver could be believed if they testified that they had never broken a speed limit. 

We judge ourselves lightly and others harshly, it’s human nature.

I received witness training once (long story) and the barrister giving the training used a similar example. Said that no judge/jury would ever believe anybody who claimed they never broke the limit. We ran through some exercises and the way the barrister was able to get you to say things you didn’t want to say was uncanny and uncomfortable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, AVB said:

I received witness training once (long story) and the barrister giving the training used a similar example. Said that no judge/jury would ever believe anybody who claimed they never broke the limit. We ran through some exercises and the way the barrister was able to get you to say things you didn’t want to say was uncanny and uncomfortable. 

Yes they can put you under a great deal of pressure because you field questions one-by-one whilst they have an overarching strategy and years of experience in court whilst you are intimidated by the process. It’s chess not chequers.

My sister was torn apart by a barrister when she was in court as a witness. She was devastated by the experience but when she described it it sounded so simple and tactical rather than even planned. She gave a distance in feet, he basically asked her long a football pitch is in feet. She got flustered and didn’t know. Once flustered he pressed and pressed then proceeded to intertwine simple relevant questions and complex largely irrelevant questions to make her look like a poor witness. The guy got off but was clearly guilty, the Scottish verdict of ‘not proven’ would have been more appropriate than ‘innocent’.

The Commons select committees can be similar pressure pots and are great to watch occasionally. Marian Spain got an absolute grilling in the DEFRA committee last year, she forgot who she was speaking to and their expertise. She used one ill considered word, which would have gone down well with her supporters but in this context then left her backtracking for the entire session. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, henry d said:

No, the law is the law, why should theft be three strikes and motoring offences not? If there is B&W fair enough but if there are grey areas then there needs to be a sliding scale. Motorists are given a choice of awareness courses or face the consequence and you need to ask yourself why?

Simply it is the fact that the majority do speed but the system can't deal with those numbers, yet for lower numbers of thefts per capita people suggest a three strikes or removal of hands system, I'm not sure of the ethics behind such thinking.

Because there's an inherent difference between someone doing a few mph over the limit and someone going out intentionally to steal. Your right by the way, the law is the law, which is why theft can be tried as an indiatable offence and speeding is usually dealt with via a nip, you don't even have to go to a magistrates let alown crown court, so the law already recognises it as a far, far lower offence. Unless your talking about scum "joy" riding, running from police, or someone constantly doing hundreds over the speed limit, but they come under dangerous driving and again is a different offence to speeding. 

Your argument doesn't hold water, there's a difference between normal members of society who infringe the odd minor law and hardened criminals who cause misery and suffering to everyone around them, they are the people who should be removed from society, your argument is pathetically febal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 12gauge82 said:

your argument is pathetically febal.

I disagree, you are the one twisting things. We started with the idea of a three strike and life for theft, you changed it to burglary which is different, however I added other law breaking to see how that stands. You then argue that there is a grey area between Mrs Miggins the occasional speeder and someone who is, as you said, hundreds (?) over the speed limit which asks subjective questions of the interpretation of the law.

Do we need to give one strike to a child who steals a toy from their friend? Obviously not, so we have to challenge why people want to chop the hands off thieves and applaud the death of a motor bike thief and feel that the killer is less responsible. Just look at the quotes; "His life is ruined, just a pity both thieves didn’t die." "New Years Honours list candidate in my book - removing a low-life from the gene pool." "This man has been punished for trying to recover his own property. " 

That's why I took the stance in my opening comment, if you want deterrents to law breaking, don't stop at just this, get thieving kids off to jail for life, and Mrs Miggins while you are at it! If there are grey areas in how the law is interpreted and applied then so be it, each case should be judged on what actually happened. Two guys steal a motor bike, that is wrong. Owner gives chase, not wrong. Owner and thieves speed, that is wrong. Owner collides with motor bike and one thief is killed and another injured, that is wrong. All should face their own wrongdoing. If you feel sorry for the owner, why can't you feel sorry for the deceased, if it is because he was let down by the "system" then you have to be prepared to allow the "system" to be used correctly against him, and the surviving thief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, henry d said:

I disagree, you are the one twisting things. We started with the idea of a three strike and life for theft, you changed it to burglary which is different, however I added other law breaking to see how that stands. You then argue that there is a grey area between Mrs Miggins the occasional speeder and someone who is, as you said, hundreds (?) over the speed limit which asks subjective questions of the interpretation of the law.

Do we need to give one strike to a child who steals a toy from their friend? Obviously not, so we have to challenge why people want to chop the hands off thieves and applaud the death of a motor bike thief and feel that the killer is less responsible. Just look at the quotes; "His life is ruined, just a pity both thieves didn’t die." "New Years Honours list candidate in my book - removing a low-life from the gene pool." "This man has been punished for trying to recover his own property. " 

That's why I took the stance in my opening comment, if you want deterrents to law breaking, don't stop at just this, get thieving kids off to jail for life, and Mrs Miggins while you are at it! If there are grey areas in how the law is interpreted and applied then so be it, each case should be judged on what actually happened. Two guys steal a motor bike, that is wrong. Owner gives chase, not wrong. Owner and thieves speed, that is wrong. Owner collides with motor bike and one thief is killed and another injured, that is wrong. All should face their own wrongdoing. If you feel sorry for the owner, why can't you feel sorry for the deceased, if it is because he was let down by the "system" then you have to be prepared to allow the "system" to be used correctly against him, and the surviving thief.

So you can't see the difference between career criminals and average people who occasionally breach minor laws, like minor speeding, pirated fims and music ect. Because that's what I'm talking about and what your pretending you can't understand, if you genuinely can't tell the difference you need help. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, henry d said:

That's why I took the stance in my opening comment, if you want deterrents to law breaking, don't stop at just this, get thieving kids off to jail for life, and Mrs Miggins while you are at it!

Literally no one said this but you.

3 hours ago, henry d said:

If there are grey areas in how the law is interpreted and applied then so be it, each case should be judged on what actually happened.

Err, it is , thats why we have courts , otherwise if every crime proved (and thats the important bit , 'proved') had a specific outcome, then convicted criminals would know exactly the consequences of their crimes if caught ?
But we dont do that.
Upon conviction, the defendant gets his reports done, and the defence pleads why he/she raped , murdered , stole , defrauded, battered the VICTIM.
Often this leads to **** poor sentencing, and smug crim punching the air outside of court, utterly remorseless, and thinking how great 'justice' is.
As they plan on how to make sure they dont get caught next crime.

3 hours ago, henry d said:

All should face their own wrongdoing.

They did, one faced his maker, one a lengthy prison term, and another life altering injuries.

If the clock was turned back , which of them would have done things differently do you think ?

3 hours ago, henry d said:

if it is because he was let down by the "system" then you have to be prepared to allow the "system" to be used correctly against him, and the surviving thief.

Dont understand the thinking behind that statement.
Why would the system that 'failed' him , be allowed to used against him ?
The owner used his own brand of justice, and it sounds like he was quite satisfied with the outcome really.
You dont think he actually thought he would get away with it do you ?
I think he should count himself lucky it wasnt longer.

 

3 hours ago, hawkfanz said:

same ones on here every time defending the baddy the pc brigade

I just think he enjoys playing devils advocate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s fine if like Henry, you believe the ‘system’ is flawed, and which ‘system’ it is we’re talking about, and that it can be held accountable for people’s actions, but what about those who have total disregard for any ‘system’ which doesn’t benefit them? 
There are people out there intent on taking anything and everything there is to take within and without the ‘system’, and not even once contemplating they should also contribute. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Scully said:

It’s fine if like Henry, you believe the ‘system’ is flawed, and which ‘system’ it is we’re talking about, and that it can be held accountable for people’s actions, but what about those who have total disregard for any ‘system’ which doesn’t benefit them? 
There are people out there intent on taking anything and everything there is to take within and without the ‘system’, and not even once contemplating they should also contribute. 
 

Spot on and it's those people who in my opinion need removing from society. If the law will not deal with them, its little surprise vigilante action (rightly or wrongly) is becoming more common. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, henry d said:

So is it ok to kill someone who is stealing from you?

Without rereading the thread I'm not sure anyone is seriously suggesting that. Your probably twisting people's words again as you don't want to admit there are some people who are just rotten all the way through and will never change, they simply need removing from society, or maybe they can come and live with you as you seem to like criminals more than everyone else. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...