Philip Lawrence

[flanker]

I hear that the low life that murdered Philip Lawrence is to be moved to an open prison to be nearer his mum as he misses her.

 

At least he gets to see his mum again - personally, I feel this fetid stinking miserable excuse for a human should be left to wallow in his own waste in a windowless cold damp dark cell for the rest of his worthless life.

 

Is this harsh? 

[cruthinboy]

No flanker, you're bang on - in fact he should have been strung up. However, prepare yourself for a possible torrent of abuse from the liberals!

[flanker]

One of the reasons I posted - I love seeing the bleeding heart liberals trying (and failing) to argue that these sub-humans should be treated humanely.

[jakesi]

Bring back hanging. thats what I say.

[georgit79]

Yes, the death penalty should be reintroduced. For scum like this.

[thewillow]

I'm sure you would all be quick enough to castigate China or Turkey for example if you heard they were treating their prisoners in this manner.

[ll_billym]

Anyone know who makes desicions like this?  This just proves how the authorities do not represent the views of the general populace.  They probably won't even have to justify it either.

[cruthinboy]

Careful ll_billym, you'll be called a "populist" one of the favourite words in the liberal lexicon!

[WaldoMcFroog]

Okay, you've convinced me - why should we respect the human rights of prisoners?

 

I agree. Also, I think it would be really excellent if when we find suspected Al Qaeda members, we stick them on an island in the Caribbean, violate their human rights in complete contravention of the Geneva convention but at the same time bleat about 'the animals' and the 'scum' when their countrymen dare treat act in the same way towards a westerner.

 

This is clearly a very clever, well argued and logical way to behave and I expect this will make the world a much better place. Well done for convincing me with your brilliant and consistant arguments.

[Ralph]

Flanker, I reckon it is a bit harsh. Prison uses the removal of civil liberties as punishment, therefore what you suggest is additional punishment and will also guarantee that every ex con has such a huge grudge against the system that they are totally unreformable.

However, I see why you are upset and agree wholeheartedly. Giving him free (or similar) access to his mother is granting him civil liberties that he deserves to forego untill he has served his sentence. I have to add though, and please don't take offence, there is a hint of tabloid story in the first paragraph of your question. The quality press in this country don't always ensure they have all the facts before they enrage the public.

To anyone who believes in the death penalty, I urge you to watch a movie called "Executions". The prison guard talking about soaking his clothes to remove the 'burnt pork' stench after an electrocution is just as memorable as the experiment in France which proved that the prisoner was still capable of reacting to stimulus 30 seconds after having his head removed in a guilotiene (sp?). The images of the final story will stay with you forever. Can you really justify the death penalty for no other reason that the large number of miscarriages of justice. How long before the state starts killing innocent people?

Annnnnd relax...........................

[flanker]

OK then, let's not bother to punish anybody ever again - the potential punishments that we have at the moment are certainly no deterent, so why bother.

 

Silly argument, granted, but so is all the guff about Al Qaeda - oh, and for the sake of good order, the Americans are not in breach of the Geneva Convention as the prisoners were rounded up because of their terrorist crimes, not war crimes.

 

And why should we respect the human rights of prisoners? What about the human rights of their victims and their victims families?

 

Personally, I'm not in favour of the death penalty - that's far too easy - for the most heinous crimes I'm in favour of making the rest of their lives absolute hell. 

[WaldoMcFroog]

What is it that is so hard for so many of those of a more conservative bent to understand? Human rights for prisoners doesn't mean 'and additionally remove the human rights from the victims as some sort of added insult to their dignity'. Nor does it mean crime doesn't deserve punishment, or that there shouldn't be deterants. Never has, never will. This is like arguing that on the basis that it is possible to understand why many muslims have a gievance against the US, you therefore a) agreed with it or b) supported 911 and danced around the telly clapping and cheering and waving the Guardian in the air. One simply does not follow from the other.

 

Okay, you're technically right - the Americans are claiming Geneva Convention doesn't apply (despite the fact that the prisoners were taken in a theatre of war). However, a) that doesn't undermine the argument about their human rights or b) the inconsistancy of many people who want the right to violate some people's rights, but not others. Moreover c) the Americans are claiming the distinction precisely because they'd be in contravention.

[londondave]

I agree with Flanker.

Rapists, Mudurers, Child Molesters and the alike could all be sorted out with a 50p length of rope instead of wasting all this money to keep them in prison. This can also go for the 3 strikes and your out rule.

And to Ralph I have Executions and I think it would be a good idea to show it in Junior schools to put them of being scumbags in the first place. Especially the very end scene. Fantastic!

[georgit79]

londondave, I haven't seen Executions, but how can you describe it as 'fantastic'!? Sounds bloody horrible to me.

[cruthinboy]

londondave - you could just get an arm-wrestler to wring their necks ... save 50p.

[ll_billym]

I thought that they didn't find out who killed him exactly?

[cruthinboy]

You getting mixed up with Steven Lawrence? Philip Lawrence was the London headmaster.

[londondave]

georgit79. Exucutions is horrible, I meant it would be fantastic to show it to young kids and tell them that this will happen to them if they dont behave

[ll_billym]

Yeah, I got the wrong case.  Then I don't see what link WaldoMcFroog can find between suspected Al-Queda members and convicted murderer.

[WaldoMcFroog]

I was making the point that if you decide to go down the road of deciding that it's acceptable to violate one person's human rights, don't be surprised or appalled when they don't respect yours back.

[cruthinboy]

But the people in Guantanamo have not been convicted or even charged with anything. Learco Chindamo, the scumbag who killed Mr Lawrence, has been convicted and as far as I'm aware hasn't protested his innocence - he has thus no great history of respecting other people's human rights.