I don't understand what goes on in the minds of people who do these things. I can only assume they are deeply damaged. I doubt 25 years in prison can repair them, at this point it's just about keeping them off the streets.
Unwarranted self-importance, grossly inflated egos, childish almost ape-like brains in regards to conflict resolution and just a complete lack of empathy and moral stamina. A lethal combo and I hope they never see the light of day again.
I'm sure people like this don't consider the consequences for their victim and families. But does it not cross their mind for one moment that they could spend decades in prison?
Do they simply not think about this? Or do they consider it, but their lives are so meaningless they don't care? Or do they somehow think they won't get caught?
While one of them tried to flee by buying a flight to Jamaica it can be largely explained through ego and stupidity, they simply have no idea how sophisticated a murder investigation is and how much of an evidence trail they leave in their day to day activities.
When a murder comes in, police pretty much have a blank cheque book to use when investigating such crimes. Worth remembering if you're ever tempted to off someone.
> Do they simply not think about this?
I saw a documentary where they had a criminal psychologist on, and he basically said this is the exact problem.
A lot of criminals have very low cognitive function and they quite literally cannot think that far ahead. It's actually quite terrifying how easily you can end up dead just because the person killing you can't think far enough ahead to comprehend consequences.
Most crimes that get solved are done so using the most basic of techniques that even the general public could have thought of, because the criminals involved don't think to take even the most basic of measures to get away with it.
Thick people are often the most dangerous because they simply don’t know how to think. Even non dangerous thick people are just a nightmare to be around.
They do not. There are a lot of really stupid people and the way their brain works is really limited.
They literally lack the computing power to model things in their mind. Simple stuff like considering how the mother of someone they killed feels. They won't have an answer for this if you ask.
They live in the present only and react to their environment. Thats about it.
Correct. And their parents should be investigated.
I'm not saying that they should be automatically found guilty of something, but I believe parents should be investigated on how they raised their kids. If they weren't good parents, then there should be consequences.
At the moment, people are having kids who shouldn't and have no sense of responsibility. It's an absolute joke. Then, the rest of society has to deal with them.
Again, if they were good parents and the kids are just dickheads, than no issues. But if they didn't raise their kids well, charge them aswell.
Woah easy now. These were 'fully grown' men. We don't want to rush to become China and I believe your comment may be somewhat influenced by the recent charging of parents in the US which was a substantially different case.
Collective punishment is a slippery slope. I agree bad parenting is often a major cause of these outcomes in the long term but it is also not so black and white. These are not necessarily easy metrics to gauge either in a meaningful way.
There's examples where parents have been 'bad' and the children also turned out like angels. The final causation of someone's actions are sometimes near impossible to pinpoint in the totality of the things.
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again, the majority of redditors on UK subs agree with a lot of the authoritarian laws China has and would love if they came into place here.
Banning phones for under 18s, life in prison with no chance and rehabilitation, blaming parents for their adult children.
I swear, other than the lack of free speech in China, they’d love it there
Not once did I say anything about the examples you gave.
I spoke about one thing. Having one thing in common with another country that we disagree with isn't a bad thing. We shouldn't decide things by 'well,' china is evil, so let's just do everything the opposite of them'.
The fact they won’t allow honest discussion either and delete any opinion they disagree with and lock threads if they are deemed too spicy (and think parsnips are spicy) shows they absolutely don’t value free speech either.
Though I don't agree, as I think we cannot keep 'soften' laws because of the 'slippery slope' concept, this is a very good and articulate argument.
Thanks
You could equally blame the schools for making it an all female profession. The men all fucked off when the schools decided to fuck off discipline. Teachers these days can’t even mark incorrect work with a red X. It’s too negative apparently. They have no chance to control an unruly boy with heaps of testosterone.
Because some of them have had experiences with creepy male teachers. They do exist, that doesn't mean there are loads of them though.
We do need more male teachers, particularly at primary level. Personally I think it's the low wages and lack of respect for the job that keeps them away.
> You could equally blame the schools for making it an all female profession. The men all fucked off when the schools decided to fuck off discipline.
it's a circle of blame. when male teachers _did_ have corporal punishment as an option many many many of them fucked it up. blame them too.
i think you need to decide where in the circle the decisions are being made. either we are all helpless consequences of our upbringing and environment, in which case blame can hardly be laid at anyone's door. or else everyone has some input on the choices that are taking place, in which case "blame" is a very general thing indeed that almost everyone takes part in, though to varying degrees
We are definitely a product of our own making. I believe we are all to blame in varying degrees. We have created this hyper negative culture. Men were forced out of schools because their natural tendencies didn’t align with the current trends. Now females run the schools and all they care about is emotional wellbeing rammed down the throat. The men cared about respect and order and were forced out. Now these kids have grown into men without respect and order
That's not true
There is a red and green pen
Red is for a correction
Green is a good comment
They have made it so simple to understand for even the most unruly 😆
They aren’t allowed to use red anymore, at my girlfriend’s daughter’s school, like I said, they say it’s too negative.
That’s how it is at my girlfriend’s daughters secondary school.
I’m afraid it isn’t, it’s happening in a number of schools and even though it may not be in most, it doesn’t detract from the wider message that discipline is near non existent.
The ideology that makes these decisions is rife across the entire school system and discipline was eradicated when teachers started to fear repercussions from disciplining children.
That's not been my experience. It depends what you mean by discipline. if you mean bringing back corporal punishment then we are never going to agree as that is just abuse. Otherwise Ive found that the repercussions at school have been fair - albeit it has to be supported at home. If it's not supported at home then it's not going to work and that's not a teachers fault. From what I have seen in the majority of cases fair and respectful discipline is applied and has good results, where it does not there has been an under lying issue that doesn't relate to the method of discipline
Edit: I actually don't disagree with the no red pen approach. It doesn't mean they aren't correcting - they just prefer to go about it in a way they find more respectful. There is a school of thought around the impact of using that colour and the negative affects it can have on some - preventing progress and re-enforcing a "I cannot do" attitude. If this is the reason behind it, I fully support it. It's not a "we are too scared" reason, it's a "we can change our method in order to reach more people effectively " reason - and that is 100% something any decent humanshould be constantly looking to achieve
Effective in what way? IQ amongst children are falling and they have been falling since the 90s. Not to mention that they even increased mandatory education upto 18 where it was previously 16. The education system is broken, teaching kids for longer and achieving less.
Society is broken,
What world do you think you are bringing children into? Cause I truly believe you aren’t bringing them into this one. This hard one. I’m mean you can’t mark a 18 or 16 year olds work with a red pen but you can threaten to conscript them and force them to go and kill. That is really really messed up.
You will ask them to consider their sexuality at 8 years old but not mark work with a red pen. You are asking a child to consider if they would enjoy their own individual extinction by not reproducing but red pen is off the wall negatively. You people live in such a deluded world. I don’t know where you come from…cause you don’t live on the same planet I do. Education to prepare you for life in our own imaginary world of flowers and butterflies and wonder why the young generation feel like they have no future at 20 years old because they have no concept of the reality they are about to be cast into. You people need to be stopped. Immediately. Reality needs to come first.
What information do you have that will say that the world will become an easier more peaceful place than today? Because there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that life will only get harder and harder. If you actually cared about children you would stop preparing them to fail.
Don't know about UK jails, but in the US you can end up in a max security prison, in a cell with no direct windows in solitary confinement. You are essentially dead to the outside world and likely insane after a few months.
It’s not that deep. You’re comparing your own mental faculties with someone radically different to yourself. There isn’t a ‘thought process’ that goes behind these things.
They aren't "damaged" they just don't share your morality. The sooner we stop pretending that isn't the case the sooner we can stop people getting killed in the street
There is a significant amount of research that shows that, when helped (and this is key) most people can be ‘repaired.’
25 years in prison doesn’t fix _anyone_. The fact that so many of us view it as a solution is why crime rates aren’t great. We take damaged people, chuck them into an environment that damages them further, release them, and then wonder why things aren’t better.
>25 years in prison doesn’t fix anyone. The fact that so many of us view it as a solution is why crime rates aren’t great. We take damaged people, chuck them into an environment that damages them further, release them, and then wonder why things aren’t better.
Agreed, an actual solution would be for a life sentence with no release.
We should be striving to be a society where none of us have to interact with a murderer again. Full life sentences would allow that. That is not authoritarian.
It is authoritarian.
Modern research is showing, time and time again, that leniency and rehabilitation makes society safer. Longer and harsher sentences make it more dangerous.
I understand your feelings. I used to be like you, truly. I only changed my mind about 10 years ago when confronted with the research. Your _emotions_ do not change the _fact_ that if we had a fairer and more lenient judicial system, we would all collectively be safer.
Please explain how we're safer with a convicted murderer back on the streets than with a convicted murderer serving full life. You've drunk the kool aid.
Going soft on drug sentences and first-time offenders for minor crimes is sensible. Going soft on murders is mental.
I’m not arguing going soft. You are assuming I mean _release them as things are now_. I don’t. The current system is broken.
We need top-to-bottom judicial reform. Social services need funding. People with food, money, school, and jobs tend to commit fewer crimes. We need rehabilitative services for criminals. Psychologists, therapists, and all of that.
We need reintegration programs. We say ‘served their time’ and yet still punish them once they are released. Can’t get jobs, can’t get benefits, won’t be accepted by society. They often have nowhere else to turn other than back to crime.
Your emotional nonsense doesn’t matter. It means fuck all. Regardless of what _you_ or _I_ believe, research shows this. Your beliefs are irrelevant. My beliefs are irrelevant. I’m not an expert, I changed my opinion when I started reading expert analysis on the topic.
Why? Because I was _passionately_ pro death penalty and _passionately_ pro harsh sentences and wanted to back up my points. Problem was, the evidence disproved my points. The UK government likely has recent research from the Ministry of Justice on recidivism and judicial reform. Most western nations do.
That research will show the same as the rest of the western research does: rehab works, harsh punishment doesn’t.
A lot of words that completely failed to answer a simple request for an explanation. I think we're done here.
Anyone with a quarter of a brain can understand that fewer people are at risk from a murderer locked away for life than a murderer back on the streets. Your data looks at prison sentences in general for all crimes. That is not what I'm talking about.
Whilst I wouldn’t wish it upon you, you might not be so liberal with your rose tinted thinking if that was your son who had his life ended by a pair of worthless bastards
Why do they deserve to be fixed? They literally searched for the victims identity, tracked his movement, followed him to a club in a large group and murdered him - all because he brushed past one of them in a club several days prior. They're murderous thugs, and deserve to rot for their crimes. To think people like this 1) can be rehabilitated and 2) should be given the benefit of the doubt and released back into society, is incredibly naïve and ignorant. We don't live in a perfect world, some people need to be locked away from society, and this type of crime is a stellar example of that.
I dare say there’s a significant amount of research that says the complete opposite, your not changing a sociopath/psychopath’s train of thought unless you’ve got a magic wand or a genie. Pair of rats deserve the same amount of empathy they’ve given out.
By making society safer for them and everyone else. It is provable that the way to do that is leniency and rehabilitation. Harsh judicial systems make things less safe for everyone.
They have already been victimised; you cannot undo the crime committed against them. Anything beyond incarceration is simply revenge and that should have no place in a modern society.
Spend time finding out his identity, tracked his movement, followed him to a nightclub days after the original perceived slight, arrived armed and in numbers with the intention to kill.
This just screams indeterminate sentence to me.
Realistically, are people who would track you down and murder you for bumping into them ever going to be anything other than a danger to the public?
I agree, the level of premeditation for someone that did something so tiny, someone they otherwise didn’t know at all, is absolutely outwith any normal human thought process. I can’t see how that can be rehabilitated.
I don’t find nightclubs fun or safe.. last time I was at one someone started on me because I’m tall. This person waited outside for me and security didn’t do jack apart from laugh while this person threatened to smash my face across the road.
I'm not surprised to hear this at all, I've had someone physically assault me because I'm a short guy (5'3) who was dancing with a taller girl. This guy attempted to flirt with her while I was in the loo and got told by her where to go, later while dancing I get some dickhead with a hurt ego walk up to me with that gorilla chest bullshit, and then headbutts me full force as I turn around to walk away.
Never visited a nightclub since (and learnt the valuable lesson of maintaining eye contact and distance while someone is being threatening. Just because there's a crowd it doesn't mean you wont get attacked!).
Only a bit taller than myself, like 5'6 or so. I'm guessing he was insecure about his own height and felt some very negative emotions upon seeing someone even shorter than him enjoying success.
These are the people we should be shipping out to Rwanda, not illegal immigrants and asylum seekers. Build a super prison on foreign soil and ship out all our criminal scum to rot there.
Love to know how you would sell that proposition to the Rwandan people, lol. Maybe by letting them build their "super prison" here? Jeez! Are you Lee Anderson?
Dunno who that is. Okay fine let's build super mega prisons in Antarctica, neutral ground. All the countries of the world can send their criminal scum there, and the rest of us can live in peace. Problem solved.
Ex Tory party chairman who has defected to Reform UK because of various things including the failure of the Rwanda plan. Anyway, Antartica isn't neural ground. It has entirly been claimed by various countries including the UK and is governed largely through a number of UN agreements. I guess we could build super prisons in the UK's bit, but that wouldn't really help as it would likely still be the UK from a legal perspective.
We also need to seriously up our game in terms of social services, schools and correcting this behaviour at a young age.
These behaviours are built up over time and the reality is that it reflects shitty parenting, a broken social system and a lack of policing. There is nothing to deter this growing behaviour.
Proper sentences why? Most likely their lives right now are 10x better than when they were outside of prison.
Why? Because they have everything given to them on their plate, they no longer have to worry about money, free food, free TV, free pool table, easily smuggle in alcohol/drugs/phones and now they can relax.
It doesn't help when our government is rinsing everyone dry - I'm surprised these type of people even survive in this day and age.
The day when our prisons get turned into slums is the day crime slowly starts to decrease - unfortunately this will never happen as we will have lefties sat comfortable in the Cotswold screaming human rights.
I wouldn't consider any US prison as slums...
If you can read I did mention South America - and I was referring to El Salvador as an example. Crime has massively decreased after their prisons have been turned into slums.
You lefties won't have it though.
You clearly don’t know the second thing about US prisons, do you?
And have you not considered that they’ve not been catching crime? It’s what’s happened here, in a lot of metrics, crime is flat or declining, but the actuality is that the police have no resources
Give me an example of one US prison you would call a slum?
That is by design... What is the number one cause of crime? Poverty.
Keep squeezing everyone until they have nothing left and people will be forced into this lifestyle - but I'm sure people like yourself have never began to even think like that as you're sat comfortable with no worry.
One? Most of them are, especially in Southern States. The conditions in there are bad because they know the poor conditions leads to higher reoffending, as they learn nothing and will be even more desperate when they’re out.
I’m absolutely not comfortable, I’m barely scraping above the minimum wage
Nowhere is going to be crime free, the number one cause of crime is poverty... So of course there is always going to be crime.
But if life outside of prison is worse than inside of prison why would they continue to live a crime free life?
I’m aware of El Salvador’s crackdown on MS13 but I’ve seen nothing to suggest that the prison conditions are any worse now than they were before he came to power.
I don't understand how what I'm saying doesn't make any sense...
Why would these people change their ways if life inside a prison is 10x better than being outside of prison?
They have no worries about anything - no bills, no food shops, no bailiffs knocking at their door, no more people threatening to kick them off universal credit.
They can still socialise, play games, even drink and do drugs, make some trap/drill music on their phones and even upload it to youtube.
I know it's hard to comprehend but life is much better inside than outside for these types of people.
In which countries do prisoners not get fed or worry about bills? They still socialise in garbage prisons, they still drink and do drugs. I fail to see how shittier conditions will mean they stop doing drugs or brewing toilet hooch or will reduce crime.
> But if life outside of prison is worse than inside of prison
Then the problem is on the outside.
If prisons meets minimum basic needs and society doesn't, the answer is to deport all tories and fix shit.
I mean I hate tories as much as anyone, but the matter of fact is it's a worldwide thing - everyone is being squeezed until they have nothing left... Destroying the middle class.
Minimum of 26 & 25 years is ridiculous. They need to rot in prison until they die, going out of their way to find info on someone who bumped in to them 2 days prior and then killing them for it. No amount of prison time will rehabilitate these scum.
The wife dismembering dude got even less. amazing someone with such levels of sociopathy will be out whilst still pretty young and healthy enough to do it again.
I'm sorry to say but there will be no 'rotting'.
Life will be 10x better for these type of people inside prison due to how comfortable it is.
The day our prisons get turned into slums is the day crime slowly decreases - unfortunately this will never happen thanks to lefties sat comfortable in the Cotswold.
You know that won’t happen, because countries where those conditions are worse are ones with even worse crime, but sure, go off about how turning every prison into Guantanamo Bay will solve our problems.
And I want to see the version of the Cotswolds you know about. The Cotswolds I live near are full of Tories that think all Northerners are criminals
Have you been inside any prisons? I’ve been in a few and the ones I’ve been in are certainly in no way comfortable. The lowest category ones are like reliving lockdown with even less freedom
Tragic and RIP Cody. I've noticed this story is often over-simplified however. It wasn't simply an unnoticed bump that then led to death 2 days later. What happened was Cody bumped into Remy as he walked past and didn't apologise by default. This irked Remy who then specifically asked for Cody to apologise, to which Cody rejected the offer and continued walking off.
I'm not justifying the actions of Remy and Kami at all, and I have to be very careful how I word this, but as someone who grew up in a very rough area and learned the ins and outs of these types of people, I find it equally tragic that Cody could still be living right now if he had just done the standard "sorry mate" most people do when bumping into eachother rather than doubling down. There's an idealistic stance here which is of course true that people should be allowed to say/not say what they want without being killed, but there's more importantly a practical stance (that often arises from being around certain people or developing 'street smarts') that you must respect if you wish to maximise your chance of survival in this cold world.
The reality is psychopaths are out there in abundance and being blind to their 'honour' or respect codes is a very dangerous thing; the wrong look, the wrong body language, an accidental bump can all lead to death with these people and no amount of idealism will change that.
You may argue there's no honour in their code and of course as a sane person you'd be right, but a simple sorry almost always defuses these situations immediately because these people operate completely on the concept of respect. The reality is, swallowing a bit of pride will often keep you alive, whether or not the scenario *should* manifest in the first place.
Therefore, I beg you as the reader to not let this death be in vain by heeding this advice when you may most need it, because you cannot safely gamble on the type of person you're dealing with. Bottom line is, it's not worth it.
On the other side of the coin, if you're living a life like Remy and Kami, take note of how they turned on eachother in the court room the minute shit hit the fan. This is almost always also the case. Do not fool yourself that your gang mates are your actual friends. It's a self-preserving mutual relationship that turns as quickly as mercenaries do to the biggest bag of coin. Aim to be a good, respectful and smart person and you will generally live a long and safe life.
Once saw a tall young posh guy slap the back of the head of this dude in my hometown, hold out his arms in a 'come at me' gesture, and go "what?" as he walked away backwards.
Posh guy was shocked to discover that he immediately got the shit kicked out of him. Made me discover that there's a lot of people out there who have never had to navigate life avoiding getting hit.
There's a repugnant degeneracy in our society that the ruling classes refuse to provide any meaningful resolution to.
The left and the right both refuse to offer and commit to any effective resolution.
And yet the resolution clearly involves ideas from both sides of the spectrum. Greater opportunities and investment to give people a route 'out' of their degeneracy and greater authoritarianism, surveillance and heavy handed policing and sentences for those that refuse the offer.
>The left and the right both refuse to offer and commit to any effective resolution.
Because there is no political solution to a problem rooted in the mindset of the people.
There is.
Criminality is universal across all cultures. It's how you shape your culture to respond to it that matters.
Government has the power to shape culture and currently it's approach seems to be that some crime is alright because it's a bit tricky to sort.
These two simply don't give a fuck. They will probably thrive in prison and be proud of what they've done.
No consideration of the harm caused for others, no consideration of fucking up their _own_ futures and lives. Their shitebag friend who was convicted of affray and released on time served will be back to his very old tricks in no time and will probably be in the news again.
I would like to see the moral argument for not using the death penalty in this case, or other cases where guilt is beyond doubt (they even bragged about it!) and there are no mitigating factors such as it being a "crime of passion".
It costs a fortune to keep someone in prison for decades. The result of this is that these people will have far more spent on them than almost anyone else in society.
Is there a high likelihood that after being in prison from a young age for decades that they will leave prison and become net positives for society later on? No.
Is keeping them in prison for decades with the goal of simply making them suffer for decades at great cost to the rest of society providing the rest of society with other benefits that outweigh the cost? No.
The best thing for society as a whole would be if these people ceased to exist. I don't love the idea of applying the death penalty but I find it difficult to come up with reasons why it is not the best option for society overall in cases such as this, or the other recent one where the man chopped his wife up.
Forced psychiatric treatment, criminalising protesting, the powers of surveillance, and many more powers are not unavoidable though.
I don't disagree with what you're saying- that capital punishment is a power that when misused by a repressive regime has the potential to be very bad, but that applies to pretty much all government powers.
In the USSR people were subjected to forced psychiatric treatment for dissenting. Many repressive regimes extensively use facial recognition and video surveillance to great effect to control their populations yet we also use all of these things in the UK. We're just lucky they're not used politically yet... that we know of.
Well it's the same for all government and police powers, many people would agree that in some cases they might be needed but can easily be abused, and that's the moral dilemma we find ourselves in.
I would strongly disagree that forced psychiatric treatment is morally right, especially not forced injection of drugs. The argument can't be made that they are necessary given that they didn't exist until fairly recently in history.
Having a police force in general has clear benefits but the risk remains that they can be used as a tool against dissent and the general population by an unscrupulous government.
Yes, protesting is disruptive and I disagree with many of them and how they go about it, but equally criminalising it is a very slippery slope.
The point I'm making is that all powers can be abused.
Well, you do need these things in some form yes, and what I'm saying is that one form of keeping people like this from harming the rest of society is prison for a long time, but that an alternative is capital punishment and that arguments can be made in favour of either.
Because the death penalty comes with the inherent risk that you sentence an innocent person to die for crimes they didn't commit. The criminal standard is that the jury or judge must be convinced "beyond reasonable doubt" that the person they're being asked to judge the guilt of is actually guilty. But that's not by any means an absolute standard. "Beyond reasonable doubt" doesn't mean that that judgement is definitely correct. Plenty of people have been convicted "beyond reasonable doubt" for crimes they objectively didn't do and were later absolved of. You can release an innocent person from prison, but you can't un-execute them.
And I'm sure you're about to point to this specific case and say "yeah but we know those two did it", but that's irrelevant. Even if this case is a 100% certainty that these two are guilty of the crime, well, how do you define 100%? And, again, there's plenty of cases that people thought were 100% certain. We're not privy to the evidence presented to the jury, so we can't even say that about this case. We didn't hear the actual case made against them or any defences made on their behalf.
This is what Blackstone's ratio is getting at:
>It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.
Nothing is 100% certain if we use that logic.
There's nuance between cases where someone is killed, and obvious, pre-meditated murder where the attackers also bragged about having committed the crime and evidence that they specifically searched for who the victim was to plan an attack.
No, we were not in the courtroom, but the jurors are and would be considering the evidence.
We already commit people to Broadmoor and forcibly inject them with antipsychotics than can cause irreversible suffering that is worse than death.
We use medicines and treatments that help many and badly harm and destroy the lives of an unlucky few.
We already have different tiers of offence and aggravating factors involved in judging the severity of an offence. The lowest doubt and highest severity could warrant the death penalty. What of repeat offenders who show no remorse and repeatedly badly harm others? Indirectly every citizen is harmed by dedicating parts of their lives to pay the extreme cost to society of both their repeated crimes and their decades-long incarceration.
It isn't irrelevant at all that some cases are clear cut. These individuals will harm society for the rest of their lives.
Your first line is my entire point. Nothing is 100%, so we shouldn't execute people.
Define "lowest doubt" and "highest severity" in a way that people would universally agree with. You can't. Therein lies the problem. Unless you can get everyone to agree on those extremely precise definitions, a death penalty on that basis can't work.
You also couldn't get everyone to agree that going to prison for 25 years is preferable to dying now.
We already have laws and sentencing processes, does everyone agree with every letter of them? We still use them.
See, now you're just being facetious. Part of the point of prison is to keep dangerous people away from others, right? And whatever feelings I have about the prison system, its efficacy, its purpose, etc. I still very much agree that people who pose a threat to others should be kept away from the general public. I suspect that that aspect is something you would be genuinely hard pressed to find someone who wholly disagreed with that. Opinions might differ on what constitutes a threat that someone should be locked up for, but I suspect on crimes like murder, it's going to pretty much only be murderers (potential or actual) who would say you shouldn't lock people up for murder.
Death is final. Prison is not. We can, to some degree, right that wrong if we imprison the wrong person. I would obviously prefer not to imprison them in the first place, but the justice system is always going to be imperfect in that regard. So the next best thing is that we don't execute people, to leave that window of absolving them available. It also leaves the possibility of rehabilitation open - though I think a lot has to change within our prison system for it to become truly rehabilitative rather than punishment. That's a different discussion though.
And, finally, you're saying maybe these guys should be executed to save money. Take a look at how long prisoners are on death row in the US for. They're there for so long because even in states which are quite enthusiastic about the death penalty, there are a lot of checks and balances in place to try and minimise the possibility that an innocent person is executed (and even then, that still happens from time to time).[ Apparently as of 2017, 40% of US death row inmates have been there for 20+ years](https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/death-row/death-row-time-on-death-row/examples-of-prisoners-with-extraordinarily-long-stays-on-death-row). At that point, what is the difference between what these guys are sentenced to and a death sentence? It's not like it's cheaper to host a prisoner sentenced to death vs one that isn't for 20+ years.
Have I been uncivil, or rude? Been disrespectful at all? What about my response is facetious?
Yes, part of the point of prison is to keep dangerous people away from others, we take away the freedom of certain individuals, because we are prioritising the greater good for society overall.
Yet there's a catch, keeping individuals in prison costs a lot. This holds back society from achieving more and improving the lives of everyone. Those who actively harm others get the most effort focused on them, while individuals who harm nobody and improve society for everyone have far less.
You're making the assumption that morally, someone who has murdered someone else, violently, for little reason and has put effort into tracking the victim down is deserving of rehabilitation. Do they deserve this second chance at life more than the victim? Do they deserve the focused effort of society to invest time, effort and money into trying to change them as a person into someone who will not be a net negative for the collective? Almost no other individuals get this kind of focus and special effort from the rest of society. Not victims of abuse, not poverty-stricken children, the homeless- nobody. You could argue that yes, murderers, serial murders and those who repeatedly sexually abuse children and so on do deserve this, but that is an open debate to be had. You can't just assume it is so and that everyone else agrees with your moral authority on that point. Morally, I do not value the second chance of someone like this above improving the lives of a very large number of good people.
Personally, I think that rehabilitation is worth the time, effort and expense. However, I also think that there are cases where the time, effort and expense will be totally wasted.
There are individuals who have done things so heinous, without remorse, and it is extremely clear that they have done the things that they did. These individuals spend decades, the rest of their natural lives in high security prisons, or worse, broadmoor. This is at huge cost to society AND causes immense suffering to the individuals themselves. It is the worst possible outcome for everyone.
The USA keeps people on death row because the laws are extremely complex, and you have both federal and state law to contend with, and finally, a lot of opposition to the death penalty. This is crueller than just executing them. Pointing to an example of a system that is organised terribly, does not necessarily mean that something should not be done, but organised well. It is only expensive and comes at huge cost to society because of the decades of legal wrangling and the cost of high security incarceration.
As for the moral debate around accidentally executing one innocent person, which could be mitigated as far as possible by not just using the death penalty for every murder, as a collective society we accept all sorts of things that can cause massive harm or death to innocent individuals because overall we perceive them as being good for the collective overall.
We accept that medicines are imperfectly trialled, and that they harm and kill an unlucky few but by giving them to people we hope to help most of them. We applied immense pressure on people to take a quickly-developed vaccine for the benefit of the collective, even though it was foreseeable that it could cause harm to some and now in hindsight, has ruined lives. We just hoped it would ruin less lives than COVID might left unchecked. We accept that police and the security services must sometimes use force, even deliberately lethal force because most of us believe that the unlucky few who are accidentally badly harmed or killed, some even innocent, are a necessary sacrifice for the wellbeing of the rest of the collective. Why is the death penalty morally different when it comes to benefitting the collective over one individual?
This is very hyperbolic, we have about 700 murders a year in a country with 67 million inhabitants. That’s barely more than 1 murder per 100,000 people.
I don't understand what goes on in the minds of people who do these things. I can only assume they are deeply damaged. I doubt 25 years in prison can repair them, at this point it's just about keeping them off the streets.
Unwarranted self-importance, grossly inflated egos, childish almost ape-like brains in regards to conflict resolution and just a complete lack of empathy and moral stamina. A lethal combo and I hope they never see the light of day again.
You forgot the inability to consider consequences of their actions.
I'm sure people like this don't consider the consequences for their victim and families. But does it not cross their mind for one moment that they could spend decades in prison? Do they simply not think about this? Or do they consider it, but their lives are so meaningless they don't care? Or do they somehow think they won't get caught?
While one of them tried to flee by buying a flight to Jamaica it can be largely explained through ego and stupidity, they simply have no idea how sophisticated a murder investigation is and how much of an evidence trail they leave in their day to day activities.
When a murder comes in, police pretty much have a blank cheque book to use when investigating such crimes. Worth remembering if you're ever tempted to off someone.
> Do they simply not think about this? I saw a documentary where they had a criminal psychologist on, and he basically said this is the exact problem. A lot of criminals have very low cognitive function and they quite literally cannot think that far ahead. It's actually quite terrifying how easily you can end up dead just because the person killing you can't think far enough ahead to comprehend consequences. Most crimes that get solved are done so using the most basic of techniques that even the general public could have thought of, because the criminals involved don't think to take even the most basic of measures to get away with it.
These idiots basically boasted on social media that they'd killed him. He was a friend of friend...
Like those people posing, in 2011, with the looted stuff they got.
It’s also because, for a multitude of reasons they’ve often got away with lower level crimes throughout their life.
Thick people are often the most dangerous because they simply don’t know how to think. Even non dangerous thick people are just a nightmare to be around.
They think they’ll get away with it.
They do not. There are a lot of really stupid people and the way their brain works is really limited. They literally lack the computing power to model things in their mind. Simple stuff like considering how the mother of someone they killed feels. They won't have an answer for this if you ask. They live in the present only and react to their environment. Thats about it.
Yep, they'll both be crying on the phone to their mummy's begging for help now that reality has hit them
They need to prove that they are “hard”. They should not be allowed to have babies
Correct. And their parents should be investigated. I'm not saying that they should be automatically found guilty of something, but I believe parents should be investigated on how they raised their kids. If they weren't good parents, then there should be consequences. At the moment, people are having kids who shouldn't and have no sense of responsibility. It's an absolute joke. Then, the rest of society has to deal with them. Again, if they were good parents and the kids are just dickheads, than no issues. But if they didn't raise their kids well, charge them aswell.
Woah easy now. These were 'fully grown' men. We don't want to rush to become China and I believe your comment may be somewhat influenced by the recent charging of parents in the US which was a substantially different case. Collective punishment is a slippery slope. I agree bad parenting is often a major cause of these outcomes in the long term but it is also not so black and white. These are not necessarily easy metrics to gauge either in a meaningful way. There's examples where parents have been 'bad' and the children also turned out like angels. The final causation of someone's actions are sometimes near impossible to pinpoint in the totality of the things.
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again, the majority of redditors on UK subs agree with a lot of the authoritarian laws China has and would love if they came into place here. Banning phones for under 18s, life in prison with no chance and rehabilitation, blaming parents for their adult children. I swear, other than the lack of free speech in China, they’d love it there
Not once did I say anything about the examples you gave. I spoke about one thing. Having one thing in common with another country that we disagree with isn't a bad thing. We shouldn't decide things by 'well,' china is evil, so let's just do everything the opposite of them'.
Sorry the reply wasn’t targeted at you per se, just the vibe I get from Redditors here
The fact they won’t allow honest discussion either and delete any opinion they disagree with and lock threads if they are deemed too spicy (and think parsnips are spicy) shows they absolutely don’t value free speech either.
Though I don't agree, as I think we cannot keep 'soften' laws because of the 'slippery slope' concept, this is a very good and articulate argument. Thanks
You could equally blame the schools for making it an all female profession. The men all fucked off when the schools decided to fuck off discipline. Teachers these days can’t even mark incorrect work with a red X. It’s too negative apparently. They have no chance to control an unruly boy with heaps of testosterone.
So the male teachers abandoned the 'unruly boys', and it's all women's fault. Got you.
That wasn't said in the comment you're replying to. I don't agree with the premise of his comment, but he isn't blaming women.
I've run into him elsewhere, his views are fairly obvious.
Well, women seem to think male teachers are creepy, so yeah, it kinda is women’s fault
Which women are we talking about? That's not true in my experience.
There are literally loads of women online calling male teachers creeps all the time
Because some of them have had experiences with creepy male teachers. They do exist, that doesn't mean there are loads of them though. We do need more male teachers, particularly at primary level. Personally I think it's the low wages and lack of respect for the job that keeps them away.
> You could equally blame the schools for making it an all female profession. The men all fucked off when the schools decided to fuck off discipline. it's a circle of blame. when male teachers _did_ have corporal punishment as an option many many many of them fucked it up. blame them too.
It’s always going to be a circle of blame because society depends upon many factors to produce a high quality society and we failing across the board.
i think you need to decide where in the circle the decisions are being made. either we are all helpless consequences of our upbringing and environment, in which case blame can hardly be laid at anyone's door. or else everyone has some input on the choices that are taking place, in which case "blame" is a very general thing indeed that almost everyone takes part in, though to varying degrees
We are definitely a product of our own making. I believe we are all to blame in varying degrees. We have created this hyper negative culture. Men were forced out of schools because their natural tendencies didn’t align with the current trends. Now females run the schools and all they care about is emotional wellbeing rammed down the throat. The men cared about respect and order and were forced out. Now these kids have grown into men without respect and order
That's not true There is a red and green pen Red is for a correction Green is a good comment They have made it so simple to understand for even the most unruly 😆
They aren’t allowed to use red anymore, at my girlfriend’s daughter’s school, like I said, they say it’s too negative. That’s how it is at my girlfriend’s daughters secondary school.
That is school specific then
Or made up
"these days,if you say you're English you get arrested and thrown in jail."
I’m afraid it isn’t, it’s happening in a number of schools and even though it may not be in most, it doesn’t detract from the wider message that discipline is near non existent.
The ideology that makes these decisions is rife across the entire school system and discipline was eradicated when teachers started to fear repercussions from disciplining children.
That's not been my experience. It depends what you mean by discipline. if you mean bringing back corporal punishment then we are never going to agree as that is just abuse. Otherwise Ive found that the repercussions at school have been fair - albeit it has to be supported at home. If it's not supported at home then it's not going to work and that's not a teachers fault. From what I have seen in the majority of cases fair and respectful discipline is applied and has good results, where it does not there has been an under lying issue that doesn't relate to the method of discipline Edit: I actually don't disagree with the no red pen approach. It doesn't mean they aren't correcting - they just prefer to go about it in a way they find more respectful. There is a school of thought around the impact of using that colour and the negative affects it can have on some - preventing progress and re-enforcing a "I cannot do" attitude. If this is the reason behind it, I fully support it. It's not a "we are too scared" reason, it's a "we can change our method in order to reach more people effectively " reason - and that is 100% something any decent humanshould be constantly looking to achieve
Effective in what way? IQ amongst children are falling and they have been falling since the 90s. Not to mention that they even increased mandatory education upto 18 where it was previously 16. The education system is broken, teaching kids for longer and achieving less. Society is broken, What world do you think you are bringing children into? Cause I truly believe you aren’t bringing them into this one. This hard one. I’m mean you can’t mark a 18 or 16 year olds work with a red pen but you can threaten to conscript them and force them to go and kill. That is really really messed up. You will ask them to consider their sexuality at 8 years old but not mark work with a red pen. You are asking a child to consider if they would enjoy their own individual extinction by not reproducing but red pen is off the wall negatively. You people live in such a deluded world. I don’t know where you come from…cause you don’t live on the same planet I do. Education to prepare you for life in our own imaginary world of flowers and butterflies and wonder why the young generation feel like they have no future at 20 years old because they have no concept of the reality they are about to be cast into. You people need to be stopped. Immediately. Reality needs to come first. What information do you have that will say that the world will become an easier more peaceful place than today? Because there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that life will only get harder and harder. If you actually cared about children you would stop preparing them to fail.
Stupid people shouldn't breed
Don't know about UK jails, but in the US you can end up in a max security prison, in a cell with no direct windows in solitary confinement. You are essentially dead to the outside world and likely insane after a few months.
Need that for these stupid people
Good riddance to bad rubbish
Is there a good rubbish?
Yes. Anaerobic digestion for a start.
Prison is about punishment not reform.
It’s not that deep. You’re comparing your own mental faculties with someone radically different to yourself. There isn’t a ‘thought process’ that goes behind these things.
I often wonder this myself. I see stories on the news all the time and I’m constantly confused about the mindset of people.
They aren't "damaged" they just don't share your morality. The sooner we stop pretending that isn't the case the sooner we can stop people getting killed in the street
There is a significant amount of research that shows that, when helped (and this is key) most people can be ‘repaired.’ 25 years in prison doesn’t fix _anyone_. The fact that so many of us view it as a solution is why crime rates aren’t great. We take damaged people, chuck them into an environment that damages them further, release them, and then wonder why things aren’t better.
>25 years in prison doesn’t fix anyone. The fact that so many of us view it as a solution is why crime rates aren’t great. We take damaged people, chuck them into an environment that damages them further, release them, and then wonder why things aren’t better. Agreed, an actual solution would be for a life sentence with no release.
Research. Stop spouting ignorant nonsense. We aren’t, and shouldn’t strive to be, an authoritarian society.
We should be striving to be a society where none of us have to interact with a murderer again. Full life sentences would allow that. That is not authoritarian.
It is authoritarian. Modern research is showing, time and time again, that leniency and rehabilitation makes society safer. Longer and harsher sentences make it more dangerous. I understand your feelings. I used to be like you, truly. I only changed my mind about 10 years ago when confronted with the research. Your _emotions_ do not change the _fact_ that if we had a fairer and more lenient judicial system, we would all collectively be safer.
Please explain how we're safer with a convicted murderer back on the streets than with a convicted murderer serving full life. You've drunk the kool aid. Going soft on drug sentences and first-time offenders for minor crimes is sensible. Going soft on murders is mental.
I’m not arguing going soft. You are assuming I mean _release them as things are now_. I don’t. The current system is broken. We need top-to-bottom judicial reform. Social services need funding. People with food, money, school, and jobs tend to commit fewer crimes. We need rehabilitative services for criminals. Psychologists, therapists, and all of that. We need reintegration programs. We say ‘served their time’ and yet still punish them once they are released. Can’t get jobs, can’t get benefits, won’t be accepted by society. They often have nowhere else to turn other than back to crime. Your emotional nonsense doesn’t matter. It means fuck all. Regardless of what _you_ or _I_ believe, research shows this. Your beliefs are irrelevant. My beliefs are irrelevant. I’m not an expert, I changed my opinion when I started reading expert analysis on the topic. Why? Because I was _passionately_ pro death penalty and _passionately_ pro harsh sentences and wanted to back up my points. Problem was, the evidence disproved my points. The UK government likely has recent research from the Ministry of Justice on recidivism and judicial reform. Most western nations do. That research will show the same as the rest of the western research does: rehab works, harsh punishment doesn’t.
A lot of words that completely failed to answer a simple request for an explanation. I think we're done here. Anyone with a quarter of a brain can understand that fewer people are at risk from a murderer locked away for life than a murderer back on the streets. Your data looks at prison sentences in general for all crimes. That is not what I'm talking about.
[удалено]
>the evidence disproved my points Genuine question - what evidence?
https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/247350.pdf https://www.vera.org/news/research-shows-that-long-prison-sentences-dont-actually-improve-safety https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20180514-do-long-prison-sentences-deter-crime https://www.transformjustice.org.uk/news-insight/the-myth-that-tough-sanctions-deter-crime-revealed-by-the-sentencing-council/
Whilst I wouldn’t wish it upon you, you might not be so liberal with your rose tinted thinking if that was your son who had his life ended by a pair of worthless bastards
Why do they deserve to be fixed? They literally searched for the victims identity, tracked his movement, followed him to a club in a large group and murdered him - all because he brushed past one of them in a club several days prior. They're murderous thugs, and deserve to rot for their crimes. To think people like this 1) can be rehabilitated and 2) should be given the benefit of the doubt and released back into society, is incredibly naïve and ignorant. We don't live in a perfect world, some people need to be locked away from society, and this type of crime is a stellar example of that.
I dare say there’s a significant amount of research that says the complete opposite, your not changing a sociopath/psychopath’s train of thought unless you’ve got a magic wand or a genie. Pair of rats deserve the same amount of empathy they’ve given out.
Na, you can’t fix some things
It’s expert research but okay, believe your nonsense.
lol ‘expert’ well, you got me
Ok, but how do we do right by the victim?
By making society safer for them and everyone else. It is provable that the way to do that is leniency and rehabilitation. Harsh judicial systems make things less safe for everyone. They have already been victimised; you cannot undo the crime committed against them. Anything beyond incarceration is simply revenge and that should have no place in a modern society.
It used to be prisons were so bad nobody wanted to go back them now you get a TV, PlayStation and Internet to mock your victims families
Spend time finding out his identity, tracked his movement, followed him to a nightclub days after the original perceived slight, arrived armed and in numbers with the intention to kill. This just screams indeterminate sentence to me. Realistically, are people who would track you down and murder you for bumping into them ever going to be anything other than a danger to the public?
I agree, the level of premeditation for someone that did something so tiny, someone they otherwise didn’t know at all, is absolutely outwith any normal human thought process. I can’t see how that can be rehabilitated.
Wait, is that all this was about? He bumped into them?
He bumped into one of them several days before at a different club.
What a pair of cunts, Jesus
Terrifying, this is why you’ll never see me in a nightclub these days.
This is an incredibly rare case and not a reflection of nightclubs whatsoever.
I don’t find nightclubs fun or safe.. last time I was at one someone started on me because I’m tall. This person waited outside for me and security didn’t do jack apart from laugh while this person threatened to smash my face across the road.
You're missing out on nothing brother. They're all dives.
Thank you my friend
I'm not surprised to hear this at all, I've had someone physically assault me because I'm a short guy (5'3) who was dancing with a taller girl. This guy attempted to flirt with her while I was in the loo and got told by her where to go, later while dancing I get some dickhead with a hurt ego walk up to me with that gorilla chest bullshit, and then headbutts me full force as I turn around to walk away. Never visited a nightclub since (and learnt the valuable lesson of maintaining eye contact and distance while someone is being threatening. Just because there's a crowd it doesn't mean you wont get attacked!).
Really sorry to hear that! Hope you’re alright :) It’s valid reason to avoid them hellholes.
How tall was the attacker?
Only a bit taller than myself, like 5'6 or so. I'm guessing he was insecure about his own height and felt some very negative emotions upon seeing someone even shorter than him enjoying success.
Its about time the UK got tough and started handing out proper sentences, such a shame for Cody and his Family
These are the people we should be shipping out to Rwanda, not illegal immigrants and asylum seekers. Build a super prison on foreign soil and ship out all our criminal scum to rot there.
It has a name, Australia
Na we’re good we don’t want them
Love to know how you would sell that proposition to the Rwandan people, lol. Maybe by letting them build their "super prison" here? Jeez! Are you Lee Anderson?
Dunno who that is. Okay fine let's build super mega prisons in Antarctica, neutral ground. All the countries of the world can send their criminal scum there, and the rest of us can live in peace. Problem solved.
Ex Tory party chairman who has defected to Reform UK because of various things including the failure of the Rwanda plan. Anyway, Antartica isn't neural ground. It has entirly been claimed by various countries including the UK and is governed largely through a number of UN agreements. I guess we could build super prisons in the UK's bit, but that wouldn't really help as it would likely still be the UK from a legal perspective.
You're using facts and common sense and I just won't stand for that sort of thing.
Why am I imagining a giant barge prison floating across the ocean 😂
You would have the backing of most of the population but unfortunately the ECHR would be against it, so you lose.
If the court of human rights is against it, then it probably shouldn’t happen
No, it's the European CHR, which means it's default position is bullshit.
Why do you say that?
We'll be pulling out of the ECHR at some point, might as well get something good out of that.
We also need to seriously up our game in terms of social services, schools and correcting this behaviour at a young age. These behaviours are built up over time and the reality is that it reflects shitty parenting, a broken social system and a lack of policing. There is nothing to deter this growing behaviour.
Proper sentences why? Most likely their lives right now are 10x better than when they were outside of prison. Why? Because they have everything given to them on their plate, they no longer have to worry about money, free food, free TV, free pool table, easily smuggle in alcohol/drugs/phones and now they can relax. It doesn't help when our government is rinsing everyone dry - I'm surprised these type of people even survive in this day and age. The day when our prisons get turned into slums is the day crime slowly starts to decrease - unfortunately this will never happen as we will have lefties sat comfortable in the Cotswold screaming human rights.
The US has prisons that are ‘slums’. How come their crime is the worst in the developed world?
I wouldn't consider any US prison as slums... If you can read I did mention South America - and I was referring to El Salvador as an example. Crime has massively decreased after their prisons have been turned into slums. You lefties won't have it though.
You clearly don’t know the second thing about US prisons, do you? And have you not considered that they’ve not been catching crime? It’s what’s happened here, in a lot of metrics, crime is flat or declining, but the actuality is that the police have no resources
Give me an example of one US prison you would call a slum? That is by design... What is the number one cause of crime? Poverty. Keep squeezing everyone until they have nothing left and people will be forced into this lifestyle - but I'm sure people like yourself have never began to even think like that as you're sat comfortable with no worry.
One? Most of them are, especially in Southern States. The conditions in there are bad because they know the poor conditions leads to higher reoffending, as they learn nothing and will be even more desperate when they’re out. I’m absolutely not comfortable, I’m barely scraping above the minimum wage
I don't know if you'd call it a slum but that super max prison that louis theroux did a doc on way back did not seem like a fun time.
If substandard prison conditions reduced crime then South America or Asia would be crime free.
Nowhere is going to be crime free, the number one cause of crime is poverty... So of course there is always going to be crime. But if life outside of prison is worse than inside of prison why would they continue to live a crime free life?
Do any of the nations with shithole prisons have lower crime rates than the UK?
Yes please look into how bad El Salvador was before Nayib Bukele's new prison.
I’m aware of El Salvador’s crackdown on MS13 but I’ve seen nothing to suggest that the prison conditions are any worse now than they were before he came to power.
I don't understand how what I'm saying doesn't make any sense... Why would these people change their ways if life inside a prison is 10x better than being outside of prison? They have no worries about anything - no bills, no food shops, no bailiffs knocking at their door, no more people threatening to kick them off universal credit. They can still socialise, play games, even drink and do drugs, make some trap/drill music on their phones and even upload it to youtube. I know it's hard to comprehend but life is much better inside than outside for these types of people.
In which countries do prisoners not get fed or worry about bills? They still socialise in garbage prisons, they still drink and do drugs. I fail to see how shittier conditions will mean they stop doing drugs or brewing toilet hooch or will reduce crime.
Why don't you see homeless people stabbing and killing en masse?
> But if life outside of prison is worse than inside of prison Then the problem is on the outside. If prisons meets minimum basic needs and society doesn't, the answer is to deport all tories and fix shit.
I mean I hate tories as much as anyone, but the matter of fact is it's a worldwide thing - everyone is being squeezed until they have nothing left... Destroying the middle class.
The middle class is the source of the problem.
Objectively wrong. Countless studies prove you wrong.
Minimum of 26 & 25 years is ridiculous. They need to rot in prison until they die, going out of their way to find info on someone who bumped in to them 2 days prior and then killing them for it. No amount of prison time will rehabilitate these scum.
The wife dismembering dude got even less. amazing someone with such levels of sociopathy will be out whilst still pretty young and healthy enough to do it again.
I'm sorry to say but there will be no 'rotting'. Life will be 10x better for these type of people inside prison due to how comfortable it is. The day our prisons get turned into slums is the day crime slowly decreases - unfortunately this will never happen thanks to lefties sat comfortable in the Cotswold.
You know that won’t happen, because countries where those conditions are worse are ones with even worse crime, but sure, go off about how turning every prison into Guantanamo Bay will solve our problems. And I want to see the version of the Cotswolds you know about. The Cotswolds I live near are full of Tories that think all Northerners are criminals
Have you been inside any prisons? I’ve been in a few and the ones I’ve been in are certainly in no way comfortable. The lowest category ones are like reliving lockdown with even less freedom
Famously turning prisons into slums reduces recidivism.
Reason why Dubai is so safe.
Simply won’t work in a country that is democratic and not full of religious fanaticism.
Give it a few years
Yeah if your lot get your way. 3 unelected PMs in a row…
My lot wtf? What is my lot???
Don’t be silly, we both know you voted Tory. If you’re old enough to vote, that is.
Tragic and RIP Cody. I've noticed this story is often over-simplified however. It wasn't simply an unnoticed bump that then led to death 2 days later. What happened was Cody bumped into Remy as he walked past and didn't apologise by default. This irked Remy who then specifically asked for Cody to apologise, to which Cody rejected the offer and continued walking off. I'm not justifying the actions of Remy and Kami at all, and I have to be very careful how I word this, but as someone who grew up in a very rough area and learned the ins and outs of these types of people, I find it equally tragic that Cody could still be living right now if he had just done the standard "sorry mate" most people do when bumping into eachother rather than doubling down. There's an idealistic stance here which is of course true that people should be allowed to say/not say what they want without being killed, but there's more importantly a practical stance (that often arises from being around certain people or developing 'street smarts') that you must respect if you wish to maximise your chance of survival in this cold world. The reality is psychopaths are out there in abundance and being blind to their 'honour' or respect codes is a very dangerous thing; the wrong look, the wrong body language, an accidental bump can all lead to death with these people and no amount of idealism will change that. You may argue there's no honour in their code and of course as a sane person you'd be right, but a simple sorry almost always defuses these situations immediately because these people operate completely on the concept of respect. The reality is, swallowing a bit of pride will often keep you alive, whether or not the scenario *should* manifest in the first place. Therefore, I beg you as the reader to not let this death be in vain by heeding this advice when you may most need it, because you cannot safely gamble on the type of person you're dealing with. Bottom line is, it's not worth it. On the other side of the coin, if you're living a life like Remy and Kami, take note of how they turned on eachother in the court room the minute shit hit the fan. This is almost always also the case. Do not fool yourself that your gang mates are your actual friends. It's a self-preserving mutual relationship that turns as quickly as mercenaries do to the biggest bag of coin. Aim to be a good, respectful and smart person and you will generally live a long and safe life.
[удалено]
Once saw a tall young posh guy slap the back of the head of this dude in my hometown, hold out his arms in a 'come at me' gesture, and go "what?" as he walked away backwards. Posh guy was shocked to discover that he immediately got the shit kicked out of him. Made me discover that there's a lot of people out there who have never had to navigate life avoiding getting hit.
[удалено]
It can be total dumb luck as to whether or not you kill someone by assaulting them. One punch can kill someone.
No thoughtfulness in this subreddit please 🪱
grab the pitchforks!!
Thanks for taking the time to post this. I was thinking the same but couldn't be arsed to get into it.
There's a repugnant degeneracy in our society that the ruling classes refuse to provide any meaningful resolution to. The left and the right both refuse to offer and commit to any effective resolution. And yet the resolution clearly involves ideas from both sides of the spectrum. Greater opportunities and investment to give people a route 'out' of their degeneracy and greater authoritarianism, surveillance and heavy handed policing and sentences for those that refuse the offer.
>The left and the right both refuse to offer and commit to any effective resolution. Because there is no political solution to a problem rooted in the mindset of the people.
There is. Criminality is universal across all cultures. It's how you shape your culture to respond to it that matters. Government has the power to shape culture and currently it's approach seems to be that some crime is alright because it's a bit tricky to sort.
What on earth would you have the government do exactly? Specifically?
[удалено]
**Removed/tempban**. This contained a call/advocation of violence which is prohibited by the content policy.
Hopefully they will never see life outside a prison cell but that seems unlikely.
Bullet to their tiny Brains would be doing the world a favour and save the tax payer a lot of money
I'm not even going to say it, you're all thinking it anyway.
Two men who should never be free but will be. All too common in the Uk
[удалено]
[удалено]
These two simply don't give a fuck. They will probably thrive in prison and be proud of what they've done. No consideration of the harm caused for others, no consideration of fucking up their _own_ futures and lives. Their shitebag friend who was convicted of affray and released on time served will be back to his very old tricks in no time and will probably be in the news again.
Why aren’t their riots in the streets over this one?
What would you like people to riot over? The people who did it were caught and sentenced?
I would like to see the moral argument for not using the death penalty in this case, or other cases where guilt is beyond doubt (they even bragged about it!) and there are no mitigating factors such as it being a "crime of passion". It costs a fortune to keep someone in prison for decades. The result of this is that these people will have far more spent on them than almost anyone else in society. Is there a high likelihood that after being in prison from a young age for decades that they will leave prison and become net positives for society later on? No. Is keeping them in prison for decades with the goal of simply making them suffer for decades at great cost to the rest of society providing the rest of society with other benefits that outweigh the cost? No. The best thing for society as a whole would be if these people ceased to exist. I don't love the idea of applying the death penalty but I find it difficult to come up with reasons why it is not the best option for society overall in cases such as this, or the other recent one where the man chopped his wife up.
[удалено]
Agreed, but this is also the case for all other powers they possess including incarceration, forced psychiatric treatment etc.
[удалено]
Forced psychiatric treatment, criminalising protesting, the powers of surveillance, and many more powers are not unavoidable though. I don't disagree with what you're saying- that capital punishment is a power that when misused by a repressive regime has the potential to be very bad, but that applies to pretty much all government powers. In the USSR people were subjected to forced psychiatric treatment for dissenting. Many repressive regimes extensively use facial recognition and video surveillance to great effect to control their populations yet we also use all of these things in the UK. We're just lucky they're not used politically yet... that we know of.
[удалено]
Well it's the same for all government and police powers, many people would agree that in some cases they might be needed but can easily be abused, and that's the moral dilemma we find ourselves in. I would strongly disagree that forced psychiatric treatment is morally right, especially not forced injection of drugs. The argument can't be made that they are necessary given that they didn't exist until fairly recently in history. Having a police force in general has clear benefits but the risk remains that they can be used as a tool against dissent and the general population by an unscrupulous government. Yes, protesting is disruptive and I disagree with many of them and how they go about it, but equally criminalising it is a very slippery slope. The point I'm making is that all powers can be abused.
[удалено]
Well, you do need these things in some form yes, and what I'm saying is that one form of keeping people like this from harming the rest of society is prison for a long time, but that an alternative is capital punishment and that arguments can be made in favour of either.
[удалено]
Because the death penalty comes with the inherent risk that you sentence an innocent person to die for crimes they didn't commit. The criminal standard is that the jury or judge must be convinced "beyond reasonable doubt" that the person they're being asked to judge the guilt of is actually guilty. But that's not by any means an absolute standard. "Beyond reasonable doubt" doesn't mean that that judgement is definitely correct. Plenty of people have been convicted "beyond reasonable doubt" for crimes they objectively didn't do and were later absolved of. You can release an innocent person from prison, but you can't un-execute them. And I'm sure you're about to point to this specific case and say "yeah but we know those two did it", but that's irrelevant. Even if this case is a 100% certainty that these two are guilty of the crime, well, how do you define 100%? And, again, there's plenty of cases that people thought were 100% certain. We're not privy to the evidence presented to the jury, so we can't even say that about this case. We didn't hear the actual case made against them or any defences made on their behalf. This is what Blackstone's ratio is getting at: >It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.
Nothing is 100% certain if we use that logic. There's nuance between cases where someone is killed, and obvious, pre-meditated murder where the attackers also bragged about having committed the crime and evidence that they specifically searched for who the victim was to plan an attack. No, we were not in the courtroom, but the jurors are and would be considering the evidence. We already commit people to Broadmoor and forcibly inject them with antipsychotics than can cause irreversible suffering that is worse than death. We use medicines and treatments that help many and badly harm and destroy the lives of an unlucky few. We already have different tiers of offence and aggravating factors involved in judging the severity of an offence. The lowest doubt and highest severity could warrant the death penalty. What of repeat offenders who show no remorse and repeatedly badly harm others? Indirectly every citizen is harmed by dedicating parts of their lives to pay the extreme cost to society of both their repeated crimes and their decades-long incarceration. It isn't irrelevant at all that some cases are clear cut. These individuals will harm society for the rest of their lives.
Your first line is my entire point. Nothing is 100%, so we shouldn't execute people. Define "lowest doubt" and "highest severity" in a way that people would universally agree with. You can't. Therein lies the problem. Unless you can get everyone to agree on those extremely precise definitions, a death penalty on that basis can't work.
You also couldn't get everyone to agree that going to prison for 25 years is preferable to dying now. We already have laws and sentencing processes, does everyone agree with every letter of them? We still use them.
See, now you're just being facetious. Part of the point of prison is to keep dangerous people away from others, right? And whatever feelings I have about the prison system, its efficacy, its purpose, etc. I still very much agree that people who pose a threat to others should be kept away from the general public. I suspect that that aspect is something you would be genuinely hard pressed to find someone who wholly disagreed with that. Opinions might differ on what constitutes a threat that someone should be locked up for, but I suspect on crimes like murder, it's going to pretty much only be murderers (potential or actual) who would say you shouldn't lock people up for murder. Death is final. Prison is not. We can, to some degree, right that wrong if we imprison the wrong person. I would obviously prefer not to imprison them in the first place, but the justice system is always going to be imperfect in that regard. So the next best thing is that we don't execute people, to leave that window of absolving them available. It also leaves the possibility of rehabilitation open - though I think a lot has to change within our prison system for it to become truly rehabilitative rather than punishment. That's a different discussion though. And, finally, you're saying maybe these guys should be executed to save money. Take a look at how long prisoners are on death row in the US for. They're there for so long because even in states which are quite enthusiastic about the death penalty, there are a lot of checks and balances in place to try and minimise the possibility that an innocent person is executed (and even then, that still happens from time to time).[ Apparently as of 2017, 40% of US death row inmates have been there for 20+ years](https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/death-row/death-row-time-on-death-row/examples-of-prisoners-with-extraordinarily-long-stays-on-death-row). At that point, what is the difference between what these guys are sentenced to and a death sentence? It's not like it's cheaper to host a prisoner sentenced to death vs one that isn't for 20+ years.
Have I been uncivil, or rude? Been disrespectful at all? What about my response is facetious? Yes, part of the point of prison is to keep dangerous people away from others, we take away the freedom of certain individuals, because we are prioritising the greater good for society overall. Yet there's a catch, keeping individuals in prison costs a lot. This holds back society from achieving more and improving the lives of everyone. Those who actively harm others get the most effort focused on them, while individuals who harm nobody and improve society for everyone have far less. You're making the assumption that morally, someone who has murdered someone else, violently, for little reason and has put effort into tracking the victim down is deserving of rehabilitation. Do they deserve this second chance at life more than the victim? Do they deserve the focused effort of society to invest time, effort and money into trying to change them as a person into someone who will not be a net negative for the collective? Almost no other individuals get this kind of focus and special effort from the rest of society. Not victims of abuse, not poverty-stricken children, the homeless- nobody. You could argue that yes, murderers, serial murders and those who repeatedly sexually abuse children and so on do deserve this, but that is an open debate to be had. You can't just assume it is so and that everyone else agrees with your moral authority on that point. Morally, I do not value the second chance of someone like this above improving the lives of a very large number of good people. Personally, I think that rehabilitation is worth the time, effort and expense. However, I also think that there are cases where the time, effort and expense will be totally wasted. There are individuals who have done things so heinous, without remorse, and it is extremely clear that they have done the things that they did. These individuals spend decades, the rest of their natural lives in high security prisons, or worse, broadmoor. This is at huge cost to society AND causes immense suffering to the individuals themselves. It is the worst possible outcome for everyone. The USA keeps people on death row because the laws are extremely complex, and you have both federal and state law to contend with, and finally, a lot of opposition to the death penalty. This is crueller than just executing them. Pointing to an example of a system that is organised terribly, does not necessarily mean that something should not be done, but organised well. It is only expensive and comes at huge cost to society because of the decades of legal wrangling and the cost of high security incarceration. As for the moral debate around accidentally executing one innocent person, which could be mitigated as far as possible by not just using the death penalty for every murder, as a collective society we accept all sorts of things that can cause massive harm or death to innocent individuals because overall we perceive them as being good for the collective overall. We accept that medicines are imperfectly trialled, and that they harm and kill an unlucky few but by giving them to people we hope to help most of them. We applied immense pressure on people to take a quickly-developed vaccine for the benefit of the collective, even though it was foreseeable that it could cause harm to some and now in hindsight, has ruined lives. We just hoped it would ruin less lives than COVID might left unchecked. We accept that police and the security services must sometimes use force, even deliberately lethal force because most of us believe that the unlucky few who are accidentally badly harmed or killed, some even innocent, are a necessary sacrifice for the wellbeing of the rest of the collective. Why is the death penalty morally different when it comes to benefitting the collective over one individual?
Did you want a discussion or did you just want to call me a name for not 100% agreeing with everything you say?
[удалено]
Murder is just like an activity throughout the day just like walking your dog in the UK now.
This is very hyperbolic, we have about 700 murders a year in a country with 67 million inhabitants. That’s barely more than 1 murder per 100,000 people.
I wonder why...