egafd.com

Lets put it this way:

Did anyone throw their hands up, gasping "Oh dear god nooooo" whenthey heard he had his throat cut?

I admit while I wasnt jumping through hoops of joy about it there was a side that had me thinking about the person who did it and whether he could sleep another night in his cell without thinking about and being haunted by what he had done.

its easy to think of him as a killer of those two girls but he is still a man and to someone who is fairly lucid of mind i wonder if guilt would set in just on the basis of slashing another mans throat.

Sure he is a child killer and the slashee may find comfort in that. Just wondering if he stops to think about it if the act was worth it to him personally is all.

I couldnt do what that man did even though emotionally I feel I could because i would think about it too much and constantly have to justify it that he deserved it but the problem of having a conscience is there is always that niggling self doubt you have become that person you hated.

Hey what makes you lot think Huntley got his throat slashed for those two girls in Soham?

He might have got stabbed because he nicked someones cup cake in the canteen or used someone favourite scented shower gel. You dont know those prisoners man.

There are some mad dogs in there.

[quote]Sam,
Why are you so set against revenge?We are animals and we have been getting revenge for foul acts for ever.[/quote]

Because I know that a vengeful mind isn't a rational one. I don't see why our being animals has anything to do with it. Are you saying people should steal things they can't afford 'because they're animals'? Maybe rape the girl you've got the hots for 'because you're an animal'? Being civilised is to know when to ignore your first emotional responses.

[quote]What loss would Huntley be?[/quote]

Not much of one outside his immediate family. But my reasons for keeping him alive have nothing to do with how much of a loss he would be so I don't see the point of the question.

[quote]I suppose you think the Final Solution should have been punished by people being locked up until they died?[/quote]

What? Where are you going with this?

[quote]There is nothing barbaric at sending out a message that some things deserve the ultimate sanction and sadistic killing should be one.[/quote]

But it is barbaric. Ian Huntley killed two defenceless girls and I see that as barbaric. Killing another innocent person, ie: Huntley, is just another barbaric act to avenge the acts he committed. It's barbarism for barbarism as far as I'm concerned and the much more civilised approach would be to keep him imprisoned so he's of no danger to other people.

[quote]It may not matter in the big picture and we know that people would still do it but it would matter to Huntley and his ilk.[/quote]

You say it wouldn't matter and admit that the death penalty hardly makes any difference to murder rates so you must know that even taking out the moral issues I have with it, it's pretty much pointless outside feeding some peoples' thirst for blood.

[quote]The perfect system has not been invented but one that lets Huntley watch Sky and choose his meals from a menu ain't it![/quote]

You're right. I don't think any system could be perfect all of the time. At the moment though, we live in a society where the state/legal system can never execute an innocent man. Ever. Once we bring capital punishment back we live in a society where innocent men WILL be executed by the state at some point. As we've already admitted, capital punishment won't do much to bring down the murder rate (it could increase as lots of prisoners would prefer death over a lifetime in prison) and since the stakes are so much higher it would be harder to get convictions from juries. The fear of sending innocent men to their deaths could mean more killers getting off.

I suppose, to really simplify it, let me explain it this way: My niece is 6 years old. I'd rather explain the situation to her like: "If you're naughty you'll go to prison and never see Mummy, Daddy and all your friends for a very long time!," rather than, "If you're naughty the state will execute you by lethal injection or send 50,000 electric volts through your body and you're hair will set on fire and skin begin to cook like Mummy's pork joint on Sunday!".

You notice the more civil approach now?

Sam, you never replied to my "Since he already tried to commit suicide, who are we to deny his wishes ? "part.
We all know that the system is not perfect which is all the more reason to make sure he can not re offend.
I just think it's a complete waste of public funds to keep him protected when the money could be used elsewhere. I know you can't put a price on human life but I do not class somebody who is guilty of such crimes as human.
I don't know if there's such a thing as a "mercy killing" , but we put suffering animals out of there misery and since Huntley has already tried to kill himself he must be suffering. Let it be.

[quote]Sam, you never replied to my "Since he already tried to commit suicide, who are we to deny his wishes ? "part.[/quote]

So you want the state to kill people who want to commit suicide due to crimes they've committed? I still say no. Imagine the court cases from family members: "he didn't really want to die!" - "they forced him to sign the papers!" - "he wasn't in his right mind to make such a decision!" No, forget it. While ever he's under the supervision of the state he should be looked after as humanely as possible. He might be an animal at heart but I have higher expectations of our system.

[quote]We all know that the system is not perfect which is all the more reason to make sure he can not re offend.[/quote]

No it isn't! It means we should strive to improve the system, not go around telling people killing is wrong, and then kill them if they don't listen! That's like the Islamic nutters that hold up signs saying "Islam is peaceful - behead those that disagree!"

[quote]I just think it's a complete waste of public funds to keep him protected when the money could be used elsewhere. I know you can't put a price on human life but I do not class somebody who is guilty of such crimes as human.[/quote]

You said it yourself: a society that kills certain criminals because it's 'financially viable' is a society I want no part of. That really is capitalism gone too far! Sadly, Ian Huntley is as human as you and me. He's just wired up differently and we should be thankful we're not like him.......really thankful. Given the choice he wouldn't want to be the way he is but we have to face facts and accept that there are bound to be bad eggs turning up every so often. My opinion is when we find them we look after them somewhere where they cannot hurt other innocent, unsuspecting people. We should not resort to exterminating them.

I don't understand why some are so keen to see a man killed. I'd understand the anger and hatred if those girls were someone you knew, but to get worked up over some caught killer that you've only seen pictures of on the news, and demanding his slaughter is, to me, an underlying thirst for blood. We've accepted it won't bring the girls back, it won't ease the pain of their parents and it doesn't stop other killers going out and committing similar crimes so I can only assume a degree of blood-lust.

Morning Sam,
Forensic as ever! The reference to the Final Solution is my attempt, albeit probably poorly put,to identify that some crimes merit more than a life time of Sky.Do you think the perpitrators of Belsen etc should not have had the ultimate sanction against them?How bad does a crime need to be ?

You know full well I didn't mean 'upset at girls being killed' but 'anger/hatred at Huntley so much they call for his death'. It's all there in my post in full context. I suggest you read it again.

And the argument is about executing caught killers. Once they're caught they're of no danger to anyone's loved ones. It's the would-be murderers who are the danger to our families.

Sam,
My point re Belsen....where re you on this...death or Sky??