I read the news today oh boy! Page 1,563

Quote: Jennie @ 12th May 2014, 10:40 PM BST

Secondly, even if there were - at least that has a logic to it. You may disagree that they should be convicted, but at least that person picked up a gun and chose to shoot another person. The conviction of those boys in Indiana is entirely without logic.

Notice how every other sophisticated Western society has ditched it? But not the Americans, they special.

View original

I'm afraid I don't know the full story about the Indiana criminals, but if three of them forced the fourth to commit the crime and he was killed because of them, then I can sort of understand the ruling.

I personally disagree with the death penalty, always have. America is slowly moving away from it as well, more and more states are outlawing it. I can understand why Americans want to keep it, some of the crimes that go on there boggle the mind.

Quote: Jennie @ 12th May 2014, 10:15 PM BST

Right to be free from torture - we will not extradite someone to the States who is at risk of the death penalty? Why? Because studies show that prison conditions for death row inmates are so bad as to constitute inhumane treatment.

View original

I'm sorry. I don't get your argument.

If I was to look at the story from a purely selfish libertarian point of view.

Those 3 lads are going to cost about 50,000 dollars a year each. That's 150,000 dollars for 4 decades. By which time they'll be leaving prison with no skills or identity other than as crims.

This is great if you happen to be running a private corporation that builds prisons.

Quote: Jennie @ 12th May 2014, 10:40 PM BST

a) The fact they are prisoners makes it worse - their choice to participate is constrained (do the rodeo for prison status and not get raped) as opposed to a totally free choice. They are lower in status to the baying crowds.

View original

I could philosophically make the same connection regarding what we're forced to do every day in order to earn a living. We are given similar choices to gain status and we're certainly constrained.

Quote: sootyj @ 12th May 2014, 10:46 PM BST

This is great if you happen to be running a private corporation that builds prisons.

View original

Our prison building schedule is at least 20 years behind in this country. The only reason we don't have a greater percentage of the population locked up is because we don't have the room.

Cue Daily Mail outrage over violent criminals who were given a slap on the wrist and murdered again.

Quote: Chappers @ 12th May 2014, 10:45 PM BST

I'm sorry. I don't get your argument.

View original

Not my argument - the law.

http://humanrightsdoctorate.blogspot.co.uk/2010/04/european-court-of-human-rights-death.html

The death penalty is not illegal under the European Convention. Death Row is, because the act of waiting for death was "inhuman and degrading treatment" which is prohibited under Article 3 of the Convention. We therefore cannot extradite to a country where their human rights would be infringed.

Talking about taking away his OBE the PM told ITV's Good Morning Britain that that was not necessary.

He added that Barlow had done a "huge amount" for the country.

Um .... I'm sorry. What exactly has he done except being a whiny little boring twat?

Quote: Renegade Carpark @ 12th May 2014, 10:43 PM BST

I'm afraid I don't know the full story about the Indiana criminals, but if three of them forced the fourth to commit the crime and he was killed because of them, then I can sort of understand the ruling.

View original

Nope, all four were voluntarily undertook to burgle the house.

They did not know the householder had a gun.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-drizin/the-elkhart-four_b_4034052.html

It's Huff Post, but a pretty accurate summary of the facts.

Quote: Renegade Carpark @ 12th May 2014, 10:49 PM BST

Our prison building schedule is at least 20 years behind in this country. The only reason we don't have a greater percentage of the population locked up is because we don't have the room.

View original

Wasn't Labour planning on building 4 titan prisons, which the conservatives cancelled because they were so expensive.

The problem being a tendency to have so many people on impossible open ended sentences.

Quote: Jennie @ 12th May 2014, 10:53 PM BST

Nope, all four were voluntarily undertook to burgle the house.

They did not know the householder had a gun.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-drizin/the-elkhart-four_b_4034052.html

It's Huff Post, but a pretty accurate summary of the facts.

View original

'is a consequence of Indiana's felony murder statute, a law that allows participants in certain felonies -- in this case burglary -- to be convicted of murder if anyone is killed during the felony. Prosecutors need to prove only that the defendant intended to commit the underlying felony, not that the defendant killed or intended to kill the victim. Most states have adopted some version of this felony murder rule.'

Ah, here is the crux of the matter.

America has lots of room for big prisons. Angola is the size of Manhattan.

We only have little bits of space. And Scotland.

Quote: Renegade Carpark @ 12th May 2014, 10:57 PM BST

'is a consequence of Indiana's felony murder statute, a law that allows participants in certain felonies -- in this case burglary -- to be convicted of murder if anyone is killed during the felony. Prosecutors need to prove only that the defendant intended to commit the underlying felony, not that the defendant killed or intended to kill the victim. Most states have adopted some version of this felony murder rule.'

Ah, here is the crux of the matter.

View original

Yeah, which is utterly unjust and completely incomprehensible.

If you plan to commit a burglary and then commit one, you are guilty of burglary.

If you plan to commit a murder and then commit one, you are guilty of murder.

If you plan to commit a shoplifting offence and some chap carries off an armed robbery in the same establishment, you are not guilty of armed robbery!

Madness.

Quote: sootyj @ 12th May 2014, 10:56 PM BST

Wasn't Labour planning on building 4 titan prisons, which the conservatives cancelled because they were so expensive.

The problem being a tendency to have so many people on impossible open ended sentences.

View original

Now here is where we get into an interesting quandary. Are our sentencing guidelines dictated to by the limited amount of prison spaces and budgetary constraints? Are we getting justice on the cheap? Do these short sentences help to rehabilitate criminals or are they a slap in the face to victims and their families?

Quote: Jennie @ 12th May 2014, 10:59 PM BST

If you plan to commit a shoplifting offence and some chap carries off an armed robbery in the same establishment, you are not guilty of armed robbery!

Madness.

View original

How about if you commit an armed robbery and innocent people are caught in the crossfire with the police? Even though none of your bullets hit a bystander, their deaths came about because of your actions.

But yeah, it is a mad law, however the citizens of Indiana don't seem to be in any hurry to change it.

Well no, one of Labour's idiotic decisions was open ended life sentences.

Keeping senile old duffers, with one leg off the streets. Whilst not locking up yoots with blades until they progress to murder.

Given the choice I'd say prison should be for people who are either a threat, an unbearable strain on society or those who may benefit from some form of enforced therapy, that and won't work with probation.

It's not a storage space for human beings.

Quote: Renegade Carpark @ 12th May 2014, 11:01 PM BST

How about if you commit an armed robbery and innocent people are caught in the crossfire with the police? Even though none of your bullets hit a bystander, their deaths came about because of your actions.

But yeah, it is a mad law, however the citizens of Indiana don't seem to be in any hurry to change it.

View original

Guilty of murder if you were intending to shoot the police and got the bystander. You were intending to kill someone, so the offence is made out.

If you didn't intend the gun to go off and it hit someone, guilty of manslaughter. The death was foreseeable, you had a gun.

But that isn't what happened here. Glad you agree it's mad! What is worse is the statement that "lots of states have a similar law".

Quote: Jennie @ 12th May 2014, 11:05 PM BST

But that isn't what happened here. Glad you agree it's mad! What is worse is the statement that "lots of states have a similar law".

View original

I can only assume there was a historical case where someone caused an innocent to die through a use of theft - such as stealing a section of railway track that caused a derailment - and that the law was created to properly punish this action.

I am, of course, just second guessing.

It's a better theory than the alternative, which is Americans be crazy.