View Full Version : Law and Order? A totally radical departure!

Tartan Gannet
23rd May 2001, 13:07
The blithering idiot who is DC of the Prison Service and the equally moronic fool who is Chief Inspector states that staff should now refer the convicts as Mr or Mrs (Miss). The whole idea of being sent to prison for punishment is fast becoming a joke. Colour TVs, Gyms, fast track medical attention if ill, even the right to vote being restored. Some criminals do better than the law abiding homeless!

Lets cut the cackle.

Many years ago one of the Scandanavian countries had a politician who proposed scrapping their army and saving millions and having an automatic tape which would broadcast "We Surrender" in Russian if they were invaded. In this sprit I suggest we save the countless millions we spend on the penal system and do the following:-

Every year the Home Secretary, flanked by all the Chief Constables stand up and broadcast the following message in a solemn manner.

"Dear Criminals,

"We sincerely apologise to you from the bottom of our hearts for our repressive laws and social customs which have interfered with your freedom to steal, injure, rape, destroy, burn , defraud, murder, commit acts of terrorism. We free you with a large amount of financial compensation and say on our own behalf and that of all ordinary non criminal citizens that WE ARE ALL GUILTY!" and ITS ALL SOCIETY'S FAULT!"

Just think, no money spent on Police, Courts, Lawyers, Prisons.

A mad fantasy? Perhaps, but when one considers compensation paid to terrorists, murderers released after a few years for political considerations, and now calling the scum "Mr", I wonder if it is that far fetched? http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif

23rd May 2001, 13:41
How can we expect these people to learn that there is a better way if we do not show them respect and understanding?
I think we all deserve to be treated as we expect to be treated.
Sure they have been convicted of crimes against society, but who are we to say they are beyond redemption?
We should be looking at ways to reduce the population of our prisons, this new policy will I think, help to return these lost sheep back to the fold of civilised behavior.

Castration with a rusty Leatherman would probably work as well!

23rd May 2001, 16:31
At the time you speak of, TG, the main threat to Scandinavia was, of course, the USSR. It was considered highly unlikely that any Scadinavian country would be able to withstand an attack from that direction for more than a couple of hours, at a huge cost in lives and destroyed infrastructure. They don't have the level of industry required to build up their armed forces to a level where they COULD oppose the Soviet might, so a simple and pragmatic solution was proposed that saved lives, saved money, saved towns, etc. etc.

So what, exactly is your objection to this?

Tricky Woo
23rd May 2001, 17:27
Can't we simply deport British criminals to an distant, under-populated land? Perhaps on the other side of the world?

I bet nobody ever thought of that one, eh?

ickle black box
23rd May 2001, 19:23

Why doesn't the whole of Europe disarm ?? After all, if we all nuke each other an army isn't going to make much difference anyway??

Think how much more money we'd have to spend on welfare, and all the lazy cu.nts that can't be bothered to work.

The reason we all have defence forces, is so that we can pull together, and create a sizeable army. If countries keep cutting their defence spending, the size of their armies reduces, the balance of power will change. By the time the whole of Europe has disarmed, those countries who have not 'disarmed' are in a very powerful position.

I'm sure that when you were in school, you studied the complacency shown by Britain between the two world wars. After the first, no-one could imagine another war, so defence spending was massivly cut. Maybe, if we'd maintained a decent army, we could have stopped Germany earlier, saving 10's of millions of lives. I'm sure you'll use one of your lefty unsupported sweeping statements to try and descredit this though.

I'm sure your going to tell me what a different world we live in today. Well, check this out, fighting in the Middle East, the former Yugoslavia, the former USSR. Escalating tensions between China and Taiwan, and in Korea, Colombia, Indonesia, Zimababwe. There's then a possible crash in the worlds economy just to help enflame the issues.

This is no time to be complacent, while each country maintains a resonable force, and the alliances like NATO hold together, we can all sleep safe. When countries start to cut down on defence, the balance of power swings and a discontented country can attack another with no stopping them.

If the scandinavian country decides to abolish it's armed forces, they will no longer play a part in NATO, as the rest of us cannot afford to pay for the welfare of other countries. If Russia then invades, who's going to stop them? We aren't going to start a new world war, to try an help a country that couldn't be bothered to help itself in the first place. But while we all contribute to the power of NATO, we all help each other out, and no-one gets hurt(so far).

23rd May 2001, 20:02
On Prisons:

When every material improvement has been effected in prisons...when doctors, chaplains, and prison visitors have come and gone, the convict stands deprived of everything that a free man calls life...

The mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of the
civilisation of any country. A calm and dispassionate recognition of the rights of the accused against the state...a constant heart-searching by all charged with the duty of punishment... a desire and eagerness to rehabilitate... and an unfaltering faith that there is a treasure, if you can only find it, in the heart of every man- these are the symbols which mark and measure the stored-up strength of a nation, and are the sign and proof of the living virtue in it.

From Hansard, July 1910
Speaker, Winston Churchill MP
Home Secretary

You vengeful punishment freaks should be ashamed of yourselves. Compared to the Christian nobility of Churchill's speech, you sound like very small men indeed.

[This message has been edited by Unwell_Raptor (edited 23 May 2001).]

23rd May 2001, 21:30
A time'ly quote from a man , again'st which few could put up a cogent & reasoned reply. I always believed that prison should at the 'least' make an attempt at reforming criminals,as at some stage most or all will be back on the street !.

A wise man thinks all that he says,a fool says all that he thinks.

24th May 2001, 00:25
Just down the road from me, on a single track road, is a little bridge. About 6ft end to end. You can't even see the actual bridge, it's covered in undergrowth. It bridges a tiny stream, almost as tiny as the bridge itself. But in the winter you can just see an old metal plate. Walking past one day I spotted it and read the inscription: "......anyone found damaging this county bridge is liable to transportation...."

It is a lovely hidden remnant of a bygone age, when justice was justice and we didn't take any s**t from people who damaged our bridges.

But transportation was too good then, and it would be too good now.

Hang the bastards. And hang 'em high.

24th May 2001, 00:45
U_R, right quote on the right thread!

24th May 2001, 07:59
ickle, you do talk such a load of dingo's kidneys.

If you had studied your history, you would know that the level of disarmament after the First World War was nothing compared to the level of demobilisation after the Second.

And had we been stronger? Not easy to imagine, really. Germany only started rearming from 1934 onwards. There were a lot of distractions around the mid-Thirties, such as the Spanish Civil War, and a lot of the continent appeared to be turning Fascist, such as Italy, Spain, Germany, and tendencies that way in Greece and the Balkans as well.

Political difficulties were therefore strewn at every turn. We maintained a fairly high level of armed forces between the wars, and had we wanted to stop Germany earlier, it would have required us to act as the aggressor. I suggest you look up the dates that Germany annexed the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia, and then Poland. We declared war on Germany as a result of our alliance (jointly with France) with Poland.

If any of the above is too sweeping, lefty or unsupported for you, please let me know.

Tartan Gannet
24th May 2001, 14:54
Interesting, start a thread on a Law and Order topic and its becomes a debate on disarmament. Now what did someone say about "..hijacking a thread and swinging it to your own topic...."? Not that I mind, that's the way things go on Jet Blast, the thread on what to do on a Friday night became a debate about the qualities of US Vs Japanese Motorbikes.

Totally predictable post from U_R. I have never been a fan of Winston Churchill, a man who changed his politics as often as his socks, Tory, Liberal, Tory.Sure he was the man for the hour when the Second War came, but the electorate showed him the door in 1945 when it ended in Europe. This quote is I suppose from his Liberal phase. At least Churchill is a better source than Jane Austen.

Now here's a nice one for you intelectuals. Human Rights Legislation bans degrading punishments but a strict Islamic has complained that the Sharia punishments such as the Death Penalty (stoning, beheading), and mutilation, (cutting off hands) forms part of the Human Rights of Islamics in the free practice of their religion. Can anyone square that circle?

ickle black box
24th May 2001, 15:36
HugMonster, why do you talk a load of old tripe?

If you had studied your history, you would know that between the two wars, the UK significantly disarmed (What happened after WW2 is irrelevant at this stage). After WW1, Germany was allowed an army of 100,000 men. They maintained this untill the early 30's, but rather than having a normal army of 100k men, they kept the best 100k men that they had after WW1, i.e. predominantly officers and the more experienced. This was so that when they later grew the army to be several million, they already had 100k fully trained leaders ready. This policy was hidden not just from the world, but also from the Prussian Socialist Govt in Germany at the time.

The french maintained a large army, with conscription. Hitler negociated with France and the UK, to get equality between the sizes of the armies. Hitler wanted a bigger army himself, or the French to reduce the size of theirs. The UK, which was in serious financial difficulties under Labours McDonald(albeit with a national govt), were very keen to pander to Hitler, and cut our army's size to save money.

Under the League of Nations, Germany wasn't allowed more than 100k men. Unfortunatly the League was weak, as they weren't going to use force to keep Germany in line. End result, Germany pulls out of all agreements, and rapidly increases the size of their army ... we know what happened next!

Why shouldn't Britain have been agressive to enforce the League of Nations rules? We were the victor, they surrendered. We got to choose the rules. It was only a few years later, the the UK was carpet bombing civilians in cities. This is hardly the actions of a country that is not aggressive. You should also remember, we declared war on Germany, not vice-versa (although they were given an ultimatum over Poland).

End result was we stormed through Europe, millions died, and most cities were flatened. If we has responded with less aggressive force sooner, the figures would have been a lot less. Look at what we are doing in Iraq right now. We are being aggressive towards them, 10 years after we won the war. This is because of them not sticking to rules we imposed on them (the right of the victor again). Why would this have been so difficult to do in the 30's. Ahh, yes, I've just remembered how the discussion started .... countries reducing the size of their armys. If Europe cuts down the size of it's armies again, who's going to be there to a)kick Iraq out of Kuwait, b)Stop them from doing it again? We can't negociate with countries like Iraq unless we have the military power to give them no alternative. Yes, military = expensive, but I'm sure the 30m dead and 50m refugees, after WW2 would consider it a price worth paying.

24th May 2001, 15:48

Suggested penalties....
Tampering with another human (in a sexual sense) without consent = Death Penalty

Aggraveted Burglary/ Burglary/ Armed Robbery & the like = Chop off one hand.
(Repeat offence =chop off the other one)

'Minor Crime' = Prison
(for prison please read small room, mattress, bucket, 1 hour exercise a day. NO TV or rights!)

As for do-gooders I vote we let them have an Island where they can do good to each other & the rest of us can get on with life!

No respect left in the world!
Burn 'em.....Burn 'em all!

ickle black box
24th May 2001, 17:45

We live in a civilised society, not the stone age. Your suggestions are totally extreme, and are not appropriate for any modern country. It is also the weakest approach to providing discipline anywhere. Any weak person can go round killing the people he can't deal with, and this is what you're suggesting.

Mutilating people, so they become even more useless in society, and cannot work/look after themselves/feed themselves is an equally stupid suggestion.

Prison is also for reform, and making someone live like a dog, is not going to help them when they leave. Society values the human life higher than this, that is why we are civilised.

I am personally shocked that the US, supposedly the most advanced country in the world, still has the death penalty. They also demonstate what happens when you have extreme punishments for the worst offenders; the extreme way in which crime is handled at the top, filters down to the front line. Watch any US crime program, you can't even be stopped for speeding, without being handcuffed, and a gun pointed at your head.

They claim to put a high value on life(look at the compensation if someone gets killed), but in reality the so called 'good guys' i.e. the police, get lost in their self-righteousness, and can end up as the worst offenders. This is demonstrated by shooting people with no warning, framing evidence, and even cold bloodied murders, where justice isn't used against the police perpetrators. Ruby Ridge was a good example of this.

There are do-gooders, and people who value life, these two aren't nessacarrily the same. Also watch most films set in the future, and you'll see what corupt self-righteousness can lead to.

24th May 2001, 18:42
Oops, ickle - you've just blown your cover! :)

A defence of humanity in prison reform and treatment of offenders? Blimey!

Your understanding of "aggressor" as opposed to "aggressive" may be limited, but you've just established that you're quite a warm, cuddly lefty underneath all the bull's stuff on top!

Breeding Per Dementia Unto Something Jolly Big, Toodle-pip

ickle black box
24th May 2001, 18:57
HugMonster, despite disagreeing with you on the majority of issues, I do agree with you on the issue of the prisons etc above.

Despite being trained to kill people, I hold a high regard for any life, when it comes to the suggestion of ending it. Punishing someone is fair enough, but killing them is a one way process. You don't just punish them in the most extreme way, but also others around them, and society as a whole suffers everytime someone is murdered by the state.

I consider this to be very different to war. War in uncivilised, it's when all logical reason has failed. Executing people because you don't know what else to do with them shows a weak society.

Now back to the subject in hand. Hug, I do of course fully understand the difference between aggressor and aggresive. Bombing civilians was aggressive. Kicking Germany into line would have been aggressive, but we would not nessacarily have been the aggressor to do this (We may have been an internationally justifable aggressor). What we are doing in Iraq at present is what we should have been able to do in the 30's, but for the cut in the armed forces. Now, if we had invaded Germany, occupied it's land with no intention of giving it back, then we would have been an aggressor.

Happy now?

24th May 2001, 19:03
Happy with that analysis, yes. However, given the international political situation at the time it would not have been possible to follow your suggestion.

25th May 2001, 01:19
Jeeze Ickle don't tell me that Betty Windsor has actualy accepted you for training in the deadly arts. If you have congrats. Just don't tell me which service or you would have to kill me. Aircrew I hope?
Back to the subject in hand. Don't be such a fr****g pansy. All this sodding wishy washy political correctness is sickmaking. The softness on discipline and crime in general is contibuting to the general brattishness of the younger generation today, and general breakdown in society.
Some teachers may well have taken discipline to extremes a few years back but by golly they controlled their classrooms. Todays anarchistic semicontroled groups of children are reminiscent of Goldings "Lord of the Flies" It then carries on through society. Police can no longer police, sentences are derisory,and crime flourishes. There are more handgun crimes and killings now after the removal of personal handguns than before. Why? because of the softness on crime in general.
Why in Saudi are there less murders than in Britain? Because in Saudi if you kill someone you end up in the city square within a fairly short time and have your head removed. Believe me it is a deterent and it does work.
And if it is the Senior service Ickle you can thank your lucky stars it isn't still "Rum, bum and the lash" Yeah they're softer today too.

Tartan Gannet
25th May 2001, 01:32
Well said Paterbrat. Id say have a drink on me but in Saudi that would get you the lash I believe.

ickle black box
25th May 2001, 01:57
HugMonster, please discuss you sweeping statement 'international political situation at the time ' in far more detail, as I seem to have missed something.

Paterbrat, I'm already in 4Para(V), and if I pass the 2nd medical, am starting with the RAF in August as a pilot. Despite trying to spend my life being trained to kill people, I have the highest regard for any human life. State justifed murder is extreme.

I'm not going to re-post it here, but if you want to reduce crime, here's a little text I wrote. Sounds good, cos it most certainly would reduce crime, but at what cost?


25th May 2001, 06:45
International political situation at the time:-

Rising fascism in much of Europe Shifting alliances in many of the former allies Fascism a significant movement in the UK at the time Poor economic stability in the aftermath of the Depression General desire on the part of much of the British electorate to avoid confrontation resulting in policy of Appeasement Weakness of alliances formed through the League of Nations Lack of ability to switch Britain rapidly back to a war economyIs that enough for you, or would you like more?

ickle black box
25th May 2001, 12:59
HugMonster, How does America dominate the world? They do, because they are powerful, due to a large economy and a large army.

Britain did not need a war economy, nor should the weakness of the League of Nation's have significantly mattered. The US wouldn't need the help of NATO to fight a war today against a weak opponent(like Iraq), they could do it alone. They are in this position by military spending, especialy on RnD. If after WW1, Britain had spent a very significant on the armed forces(Yes, other public sectors would have suffered), we could have been in todays US style position. We wouldn't have needed allies, we wouldn't have been declaring war, we would have been enforcing an agreement. At this time, Germany was very militarily weak.

But, they couldn't do this in time, and instead of trying to deal with a little problem earlier, they had to wait untill they had a huge monster to deal with, and get the US in to help out again.

Iraq and the Serbs don't like what we are doing to them, but we can, because we are more powerful than them. If we didn't have the aircraft to target weapons factories in Iraq, we could end up watching them re-grow the armed forces, and end up having GulfWar No.2 to finally resolve the issue.

Back to the issue in hand again, there was complacency between the two wars, and a massive cut in defence spending. This is exactly what you suggested again, more complacency. If we all spend money or arms, we have expensive stability. If countries stop their spending on arms, they save a fortune, but the world has instability again.

28th May 2001, 16:28
Ickle I have greviously misjudged you. Verily a Beleraphon rising.
Been to Ceasers camp seen the shuffle bars, prefered our death slide, many good memories of gentlemen I used to drink and jump with down at Thruxton and Netheravon. Saw English Rose being tried on the lake down in Aldershot before it went across the Atlantic. Shea Simmonds, Ackerman, Etchell, Balls, We even had a few of you cherry berries giving us the roust about down at Lympstone.
You still have a p...sy attitude to the element of society who generaly should be behind bars, or should have been soundly clipped behind the ear when they were kids. Actualy make that swotted hard on the arse, I never did hold with hitting kids on the head, unless the little bastards were trying to do you with a bottle. A liitle discipline never went astray as you are very well placed to observe. A lot of discipline is even better. I have always felt that it starts young and a child wants to know where the line is, they are constantly searching for the limits and knowing where they are is a basic need. In our society today the limits are getting increasingly blurred, young, and not so young offenders are getting away with a smack on the wrist, a big brief on their 'rights' and not enough of " sorry mate that was unacceptable and here's what is going to happen to you to see you don't do it again".
Yup I am for the death penalty, it is hoped that a fair trial and proper defence ensures that only the guilty are punished in this way, but if a person has taken a life, then his or her victim was suffered the ulimate end then I feel that it is not unreasonable for him or her to forfeit their right to life. Yes I do think it is a deterent, it does tend focuss a person's mind if they realise that their own life might just hang in the balance before they go ahead and do some of the wilder things that do get done.
Likewise the soft sentences and politicaly correct softly softly approach is I think is a positive encouragement to the wilder element these days.
Good luck with aircrew selection by the way the view up front beats the view out the arse end as you exit.
Drink in Saudi, if you know the lash is out there you either don't drink or drink carefully, don't go out pissed, do things discretely. Yes it's there but everyone knows the penalties and behaves accordingly. You certainly don't get much trouble at closing time thats for sure. I'll raise a glass with or to any of you... carefully!

29th May 2001, 18:14
Hi TG,

"I have never been a fan of Winston Churchill, ..." (Good grief, TG)

I'm sure had Winston been prescient enough in time to anticipate your postjudice agin him TG, he may well have modified his behaviour enough to be more compatible with your twenty first century hindsight.

Meanwhile we await the year 2050 for the post: "I have never been a fan of TG, ..."

Best wishes,

Tartan Gannet
29th May 2001, 20:39
Sorry Rainbow, but I long since gave up any reverence for Icons be they political or religious. Winston Churchill to me was the man for the hour in 1939 and thus till 1945 when he became redundant as shown by the rejection of him and his party in favour of the REAL Labour Party of Clem Attlee. That he dottered on as an MP until 1964 well after his sell by date (a bit like Ted Heath has until a few weeks ago), was to say the least a bit sad.

Its a bit like Thatcher too, the woman for the moment, (Winter of Discontent, Falklands War etc), but she didnt realise when it was time to pass on the baton and retire with grace.

Someone asked me in a reply to a letter of mine in a local newspaper "Who is YOUR Guru?"
I dont have one, but the closest I get is a bloke who's face I see every morning when I comb my hair.

Tricky Woo
29th May 2001, 22:30
TG wrote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Someone asked me in a reply to a letter of mine in a local newspaper "Who is YOUR Guru?" I don't have one, but the closest I get is a bloke who's face I see every morning when I comb my hair.</font>

Got a new boyfriend, TG?

30th May 2001, 00:56
Ok everybody, I going to try to get this thread back to crime and punishment. If you don't mind?

I would like your thoughts about what is going to happen in the US next month. June 6th a person will be put to death by lethal injection in the Federal prison at Terre Haute Indiana.

This person was accused of summarily executing 168 men, women and children (19 under the age of 6) on April 19, 1995 in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. He was tried and found guilty. His defense cost the American taxpayers over 3.4 million dollars and that amount is still increasing. He has admitted his guilt in TV interviews, book interviews and magazine articles. He has expressed absolutely no regrets for actions. He called the children's deaths "collateral damage". He waited until 09:02 on workday to set the bomb off for "maximum exposure".

There is no doubt of his guilt.

Should he be executed?

I was personally involved in the aftermath of the bombing of the Murray Federal Building. I was a pilot for a major Federal Law Enforcement Agency based in Oklahoma City. One of my best friends, a guy I flew with, wife was a vice-president of the Federal Employee's Credit Union. She was killed. The only daughter and only grandchild of a retired United States Air Force Colonel that lived across the street from my mother were killed. The Colonel, he was 72, had a stroke the day after the double funeral. I was at the bombsite the weekend after the bombing.

Perhaps I'm too emotionally involved to form an unprejudiced opinion on this person. Part of me wants him to be executed, but slowly. Then another part of me would like him to live a very long time in a very small cell in solitary confinement being forced to watch pictures of the nineteen children he killed.

One point however, if he is executed he can never harm another person, ever. He will not be able spill his poison to the media.

You have probably noticed I have not written the name of the person who is guilty of this unspeakably evil crime against humanity, nor will I. He's had enough exposure.

30th May 2001, 02:24
"There is no doubt of his guilt.

Should he be executed?"


It is a moral issue, and we do not agree on it.

30th May 2001, 07:20
Conny, as much as I want to see this son of a b***h pay for his deed with his life, I vote prison for the rest of his natural life. Not because I'm against the death penalty, but if he is put to death, every flake who sees a conspiracy behind every tree will only see him as a martyr.
The fact that the feds have admitted a royal f**k-up took place with some evidence will only reinforce their convictions.

Tartan Gannet
30th May 2001, 08:45
Con-Pilot. Yes, he is guilty, yes he admits his guilt, no the missing FBI documents are a tedious technicality and change nothing, YES HE SHOULD BE EXECUTED and I will be delighted when he is!

Its a pity we in the UK do not reverence the lives of the innocent victims as they do in most states of the USA.

PS Thanks for bringing the thread back to Law and Order as I orginally meant it to be and stopping HM playing at AJP Taylor.

Tricky Woo
30th May 2001, 12:33
Hi All,

The case for or against Capital Punishment in response to acts of terrorism is far less clear cut than when in response to civil criminal acts.

In civil cases? 'The execution of one innocent man, blah, blah, blah...' That does it for me. Also, I'm a Brit, and we're all too nice to do that sort of thing. We drink tea on our lawns, you know. It also gives us yet another reason to laugh at Texans.

As regards terrorist acts: Anyone looking at the sad pile of rubble that resulted from the Oklahoma Bombing is naturally going to want to see someone pay dearly for the crime. How dearly? Well, a lynching would be satisfying. Or perhaps something nastier like a burning?

Ok, so we want an execution... but how can we justify it?

We know that killing the evil swine won't bring the dead victims back, nor dry the eyes of their relatives and friends, nor replace the lost limbs of the wounded. So what will it accomplish?

Killing the inhuman filth will make future terrorists think twice, won't it? Er no... not quite. Ask any Brit or Israeli. Quite the opposite, in fact. Any half-wit that falls under a tram is branded a martyr these days, so imagine their ascendence to the realms of the annointed if executed in response to some tosspot 'Cause' or other.

Ok, maybe the Death Penalty will save the State some money 'cos as we know captured terrorists spend the rest of their lives in gaol (jail) wearing Armani, eating lobster, and swigging champagne? (Lucky sods). Hmm... in theory. In practice the dubiousness of Capital Punishment as a civilised penalty in our day and age means that any court case drags on for ages and costs an absolute fortune.

Ok, then maybe legal execution of these scum will simply make us all feel better? I know that I feel GREAT whenever I've suitably avenged some minor CRIME against my own person. Therefore, I'll feel ever BETTER if the State avenged a GREATER crime with DEATH! In fact I'LL FEEL GREAT!

...or maybe I'd feel a bit sick that I'd let my own emotions dictate State policy? Shouldn't the laws of a country be founded on logic and reason? Do I really want the State to execute terrorists simply because it would make me feel better?

No, I wouldn't.


30th May 2001, 12:46
There is also a practical difficulty in executing a terrorist who is part of a large organisation (ETA/IRA/Bin Laden/whoever). Due process of law inevitably takes time. Two days before the execution, organisation takes 10 innocent hostages and says that they will die five minutes after the convicted terrorist. Videos supplied to media. What does the Government do now?

30th May 2001, 13:05
Shoot the hostage

(sorry too much Speed)

ickle black box
30th May 2001, 13:22

You've not picked the best example, by using McVeigh. Although he is unquestionably guilty, there is far more to this case. Blowing up the remains of the building, and killing the one person who really knows what happened is a surefire way of completing the cover up.

Yes he may deserve the death penalty, but in this case it may be more constructive to keep him alive, and try to establish what happened and what cover up took place there, especially by the FBI. I'm not going to start to detail it, as I don't understand it all. If anyone's interested, check out Newsmax.com Forum.

30th May 2001, 15:42
ConPilot, my commiserations for your loss, I applaud and admire your quiet dignity in the face of such appalling personal tragedy. I know, as we have spoken of it separately, the further professional involvement and how you handled that in a similar fashion.

How to punish a man, an amoral sociopath, who cannot conceive that what he did was wrong and views with cold passionless calm the murder of men, women and children. A murder he planned to ensure as many were killed, injured or harmed as possible. I think there can be no doubt that he planned, carried out and was responsible for this bombing, though I understand there was at least one other person involved. Does he deserve death rather than life imprisonment – difficult decision for a civilised society. His reasons are incidental, no killing can be justified and yes, I’m totally opposed also to state executions – though logically I can understand that a case can be made to remove certain people from society in this way. If we are going to take a life and have it sanctioned by the State then probably injection is one of the more compassionate ends.

Would I have a different view if it had been my child, my husband, sister or parent that was killed – possibly; though I can say I have never sought revenge nor retribution for people who have harmed me or mine. This doesn’t mean I haven’t sought justice. No, this is not due to wishy-washy liberal principles and no, I’m not going to enter a discussion of the circumstances.

Terrorists planted bombs which killed indiscriminately and enmasse in Ireland and England through the 70s, 80s and 90s, yes, I lost a friend to one of these as many have. So can empathise in some measure with the feelings of those who suffered from this atrocity. Should we have also tried and executed every terrorist, would that have resulted in less or more violence.

There are thousands of people murdered, mugged, raped and abused and injured deliberately every day, should we feel less or more for the deaths of hundreds at one time. A young teenager takes a gun and murders his school-fellows, a criminal casually batters to death an old-woman because she is a witness to his robbery of her possessions, a child dies after months or years of abuse or torture by his or her parents (or guardians), a doctor murders dozens of his patients by injecting them with morphine. A group of teenagers group rape and severely beat a woman, then toss her in a canal to die. A drunk driver kills a mother and child in an accident. A policeman, racing to an accident, kills a pedestrian. Which of these deserve the death penalty. These are not isolated incidents, but regular almost frequent occurrences.

Does the death of dozens count for more than the death of one, for each one is a tragedy. Should we punish more severely if a person kills many or just one. Is it worse if someone kills a child than a man. Are people culpable and responsible if they know what is going to happen and do nothing, or should we concentrate only on the person who actually carried out the act.

Should we execute our criminals who kill or keep them incarcerated for terms ranging from a few years to life (apparently we have to let them out before they would die in prison – someone correct me if this is wrong). Has removing the death penalty resulted in a more violent society, personally I think this is too simplistic a view.

Should we not also differentiate between premeditated murder, death as a result of either abuse or beatings and accidental or a sudden out-of-character act with justifiable reasons.

There are several reasons to punish a perpetrator – revenge, rehabilitation, protection of society from crime, a warning to others not to offend are the main ones. Does it work, if so, why do so many criminals re-offend.

Why is there an ever-growing prison population, and why more and more crimes committed by young people and children. Where has society gone wrong and should we hold society as a whole responsible for the actions of a few.

Do people who commit crimes fear any of the above consequence, and how much chance is there that they will be caught and if caught, brought to trial and justice. How many people in prison, actually believe they deserve their sentence. I doubt anyone sets out to commit a crime believing they will be caught.

Perhaps if we made a sentence mean something rather than just a term to be negotiated – how many convicted criminals serve the full term (many know they will only serve a third or half). Perhaps if legal procedures were less concerned with monetary value and more with the human misery caused by crime, we would see more emphasis on ensuring the punishment really did fit the crime. Why should a person serve longer for tax avoidance or a theft, than for rape or mugging. Why should previous crimes not be taken into account during a trial – surely if someone is carrying out a series of similar crimes it should be part of the process.

Why should a person who commits a serious crime have his sentence reduced or halved for good behaviour in prison – he is serving the time for a crime, not for how he acts inside gaol.

Has justice been served by incarcerating someone - or should society insist that the offender also / instead makes amends to the victim.

How do you explain to a caterpillar that it can become a butterfly, and will, regardless of its current belief system.

Tricky Woo
30th May 2001, 16:37
Perfect, Velvet.

TW, xxx

30th May 2001, 19:19
TG, I'm very, very sorry that I posted anything that may have caused "your" thread to stray from the straight and narrow.

Please accept my most sincere apologies. Please also forgive me for having an interest in history and for reading lots on any subject that interests me. I know this is most annoying for anyone who considers those who actually read stuff as "trendy lefty intellectuals" rather than taking their opinions from the pages of the "Daily Mail" like any reasonable person.

Please also accept my most grovelling apologies for having mistakenly carried on from something you used in your post, and having the effrontery to develop it further.

I accept that I should, of course, have merely agreed, not touted my own opinions, and should never, ever challenge anybody else's ideas. That would be most uncomfortable for them, and I deeply regret any embarrassment caused to any reader, especially yourself, your friends, your relations, family or neighbours.

I hope that we can, after a suitable hiatus, put this regrettable incident behind us and that any damage caused to this Forum will not be too long-lasting, and that the public image of PPRuNe, which I have severely prejudiced, will eventually recover from such an onslaught.

30th May 2001, 22:16
I would like to thank everyone for his or her opinions and thoughtful replies.

But first I need to apologize to you for a mistake I made on the date set for the execution. It is set for June 11, not the 6th.

As I said in my original post, even I am confused whether this person should be executed or not. There have been many public opinion poles (wow, that's surprising) conducted here in the US. I have combined and averaged the poles and below is how they come out.

52 o/o Yes
31 o/o No
12 o/o Don't Know
5 o/o Huh?

Of course in Oklahoma City the Yes opinion is considerately higher. However there are a small number of survivors and direct line relatives (husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, sons and daughters of the victims) that are against having this person executed. Their reasons vary from not believing in state sponsored killing, to death is too good for that F*****G A*****E. The majority of them want this person to live a long time thinking about the horrific act he committed.

Many survivors and direct line relatives feel that unless the execution is carried out they will not have a full closure on the tragedy that came close to destroying the rest of their lives. I cannot say in all honesty that disagree with their opinion. While I did lose someone close to me, I have accepted that Kathy is dead. What made matters even worse were that she was one of the last bodies recovered from the rubble over a week after the bombing. And yes, we were still hoping against all odds that she was still alive. No survivors were recovered after the first day.

Someone pointed out that there should be a difference between criminal and terrorist acts. That may be true, but who should or could be able to differentiate between the acts. When a right wing or left wing group robs a bank to support themselves how they any different from a gang of thieves robbing the same bank to support themselves? I don't have the answer, I don't know if anyone does.

Again I would like to thank everyone for your input, especially Velvet for her thoughtful insight.

30th May 2001, 22:38
Some excellent points made by several people on McVeigh.

My opinion on his particular case is that he should be executed.


Because he knew the full nature of the act he committed, and furthermore he knew the penalty which, whatever your views on the morality of state execution, remains at present the prescribed (by popular franchise) punishment for his crime. Despite alleged irregularities in the prosecution there is no doubt in anybody's mind, as far as I can tell, that he committed the act. Furthermore, those who want him to sit in jail and contemplate what he did for years to come are, I think, missing the fact that he has shown no remorse whatsoever, and I don't believe he ever will.

As for the death penalty as a general principle, I am opposed to it, for a whole raft of reasons, not the least is because of the very significant danger of wrongful conviction. Next is the problem of poor, educationally-deprived defendants being less able to acquire the services of a good defence lawyer. Another is the danger of misuse of the death penalty for political purposes, to boost ratings, to twist public perceptions, to abuse the simple human rights of defendants for the gain of politicians.

Tartan Gannet
31st May 2001, 01:53
Right HM I take that as carte blanche to jump on ANY thread you make and divert the discourse whatever it may have been about to either, Freemasonry, Capital Punishment, Steam Trains, Battleships of WWI and WW2, The Occult, Comparative Religion, Dining Out in the Thames Valley, Glasgow of the 1950s to 1980s, Old Valve (Vacuum Tube) Radio and TV sets, Angling just to name a few subjects which interest me without any recourse to yourself.

BTW I DONT read the rag called the Daily Mail, nor the Mirror, Express, Sport, Sun, Telegraph, Guardian, Independent. If I read any daily paper, apart from my local rag, its The Times.

31st May 2001, 11:30
Huggy what an extremely irritating SOB you can be! :) Now look what you have done; gone and upset poor TG all over again. What with the truce and all, you should be ashamed of yourself!! Go stand in the corner and repeat after me: I will NOT be sarcastic on JB again....
100 times please; that should do you. :)
Oh and BTW, agree totally with your last post. Once again you exactly state my thoughts on a matter.

TG never mind Hugmonster; he can't help himself at times. It must be his easily heated foreign blood? Or maybe he missed a couple of slots that particular day? Anyway, he's a good lad, apart from those occasional razor blades on his tongue :)

Taxidriver I had the pleasure of sharing a hotel room with Velvet last year, and as such am uniquely placed to respond to your last ignorant comment. Please let me assure you that I did not observe even the slightest tendency-to-sag on those Peerless Creamy Orbs! Enough said.......

Tartan Gannet
31st May 2001, 19:49
Flaps, Im not upset at HM, its his inconsistancy which is so silly. On another thread he castigated me for "hijacking the thread". I didnt! I merely answered the originator's question in a way which insulted his precious principles and his highly individual interpretation of the religion he professes. So he should not get on his high horse when I question his turning a thread on a Law and Order subject into a running History Lesson on the inter war years. If I had wanted a thread on appeasement, rearmament, League of Nations, etc,etc, I would have started one.

Im afraid that reading over many threads where he features I can see that he is the type who only sings when he's winning. I have met his sort at school, in pubs, on trains, at work, etc. They love to dish it out and are full of false bonhommie but as soon as someone bites back they either try browbeating bully boy tactics or go running off to their Lawyer "mummy he hit me" (defamed me). I have come to the sad conclusion that this big kilted lad is bit of a blowhard, despite the fact that I have found myself in agreement with him on some issues such as the Gay/Straight Pilots threads. Still as I am unlikely ever to meet him as I dont visit Newcastle these days and only fly "Nigel" or other mainstream carriers I assume I am safe from a punch in the mouth.

31st May 2001, 20:27
Gonads, TG.

You used an idiotic comparison with Scandinavian foreign/defence policy to justify an attack on humanitarian principles in prison policy.

I questioned this simile.

IBB then started the history lesson.

I can't remember ever having castigated you for hijacking a thread. I castigated you for, in effect, claiming it was the fault of others that you hijacked a thread asking a simple question by turning it into your personal prejudiced views of catholicism.

Finally, I have not punched anyone in the mouth since my mid-teens. If all you expect from others whom you upset is bodily violence, then I'm sorry for whatever in your history caused this. Either that's your personal reaction, or you spend a lot of time upsetting some emotionally backward people.

[This message has been edited by HugMonster (edited 31 May 2001).]

1st Jun 2001, 18:05
Now I know this post is connected very thinly to this thread but it seems ironic to me that the USA is intent on executing McVeigh for a terrorist attack on it's own soil yet where did a very large amount of the IRA's bankroll come from?Or is it only terrorism in the states that count?

1st Jun 2001, 19:36
I would venture that despite the many varied opinions and judicial measures practised throughout history the criminaly deviant remain stubbornly amongst us. As Pogo once remarked "I have seen the enemy, and the enemy is us" We each and every one of us at some time in our lives will stray, some further than others, from whatever straight and narrow line our society has drawn for us as good and correct behaviour.
These boundries we all transgress is generaly to a degree seemingly bound only by our own perceptions of how serious it is to go over the line and what the consequences of our straying will result in to us.
Since we are all so delightfully individual and each and every one of us have somewhat different definitions of 'normality'/'what is acceptable to me'/'what I think I can get away with',it would seem to me that the increasing general relaxation of moral standards and of personal resposibility in this country,can only lead to the widening of the guiding lines that we all depend on.
'You see it wasn't really my fault because my legal aid, counselor, phsychiatrist, chiropodist, state appointed whatsit, says that it all stems from the ..........etc etc.'
There also seems to be an increasing climate of, 'it's somone elses fault', with the attendent rise in lawyers to take care of it and TV advertising 'lets find any accident you can remember and make it into a court case'.
The point of the ramble is, that if there are increasingly softer and softer 'treatments' for those who really step widely out of the general guidlines there is no real incentive to all of us to obey those guidelines and those antisocial element who will always be with us will simply be freer to do exactly what they want when they want and where they want.
Timothy saw fit to kill a lot of people. why then should he not be considered as fit for death himself by those affected by his actions.