FFS

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-35801910

I know this makes me sound so Daily Mail but the woman is a triple murderer. Prison should make her feel teary and upset.

I am devoid of sympathy and hate the fact that money is spent on this legal process. How on earth must the victims families feel when they see this sort of thing?

Hmm, I think I probably agree with you.

It’s the eternal problem. Showing compassion to those who really don’t deserve it, or at the very least have decided to opt out of the basic moral rules most of us abide by.

Personally, I think she should be shot into the sun.

She killed the landlord of a shared house opposite me.

Okay, I’ll bite:

Will treating her badly make her less likely to reoffend when released? No, and I’d assume she’s never getting out anyway.

Will treating her badly discourage other similar crimes? No.

So in that case what’s the point? The measure of a society is how we treat people like this – we should prove how much more humane we are than she is by treating her properly.

I will counter that bite. While it may not miraculously cure her, should she not feel some discomfort in return for taking the lives of 3 individuals?

So in that case what’s the point? The measure of a society is how we treat people like this – we should prove how much more humane we are than she is by treating her properly.

I understand that and agree with it. But at a time when there is so much pressure on the public purse it is galling to see this sort of thing taking up time, and money, in the courts.

The measure of a society is how we treat people like this

I’d argue that is only partly the case. What about the way we treat her victims’ families by extension?

I don’t think it helps to draw a line around the most obvious ‘person’ and say this is the measure of a society. If you consistently choose the most extreme devil’s advocate examples you can end up in some pretty unpleasant places.

Whilst I suspect it’s a bullshit claim brought by someone for the sake of something to do, that’s not really the point – whether you call it punishment, rehabilitation or simply protecting the public from a very dangerous person – prison is not meant to be pleasant.

“Teary and Upset” is pretty much the way my Son used to feel when we put him on the naughty step for being rude, someone who killed 3 people and tried to kill another 2 should feel a little more that “teary and upset”.

I will counter that bite.

Me too. She is a danger to herself & others. She is not being denied privileges such as TV.

Whilst I believe you are sent to prison as a punishment, not to be punished – keeping her away from others is clearly for their own safety.

I will counter that bite. While it may not miraculously cure her, should she not feel some discomfort in return for taking the lives of 3 individuals?

It’s justice not revenge

bencooper ftw. Prison should be about rehabilitation, not punishment.

It’s justice not revenge

Should punishment not be part of justice?

Should punishment not be part of justice?

Kant would have it that punishment IS justice.

In the 18th century, philosopher Immanuel Kant argued in Metaphysics of Morals, §49 E., that the only legitimate form of punishment the court can prescribe must be based on retribution and no other principle. “Judicial punishment can never be used merely as a means to promote some other good for the criminal himself or for civil society, but instead it must in all cases be imposed on him only on the ground that he has committed a crime.”

Kant regards punishment as a matter of justice, and it must be carried out by the state for the sake of the law, not for the sake of the criminal or the victim. He argues that if the guilty are not punished, justice is not done. Further, if justice is not done, then the idea of law itself is undermined.

You lot think too much …

Think about the cost!

Think about the money that can put to good use!

Think about the money!

mtbfix – Member
bencooper ftw. Prison should be about rehabilitation, not punishment.

Rehabilitate what?

Rehabilitate the family of the murdered?

😯

Stoner – Member

Should punishment not be part of justice?

Kant would have it that punishment IS justice.[/quote]
Punishment on the perpetrator is a justice and a rehabilitation for the victims.
My view is that unless family of the victim forgives the murderer, the murderer should be punished accordingly may it be capital punishment or whatever horrible ways to die. There should be a list to choose from … This is the rehabilitation for the living. Society has no say in this …

Are you actually discussing the right issues?

It’s not a case of punishment vs rehabilitation.

From reading the article, it seems she was kept isolated from other prisoners. Prison says it was justified due to a planned breakout attempt that involved cutting off someones finger. She claims this was unjust, and caused unnecessary suffering.

I don’t think the prison is arguing that she was kept isolated as punishment.

It’s worth keeping in mind (I know others have said the same) that Solitary Confinement isn’t a form of punishment per se – it’s something that’s imposed for the safety of either the prisoner, or other prisoners, the staff or a combination of all three.

She should face the sentence like prisoners depicted in the movie Papillon.

It’s justice not revenge

…and this time it’s personal!

Starring Chuck Norris.

She should face the sentence like prisoners depicted in the movie Papillon.

A nice holiday to French Guiana?

A nice holiday to French Guiana?

But maybe not involving the “charger”* eh?

*why the hell do I remember that bit of the book? Sheesh.

Anyway, I prefer Kafka’s take on it in “In the Penal Colony”

bencooper ftw. Prison should be about rehabilitation, not punishment.

frontal lobotomy or large electric shocks might do it, otherwise I doubt it is possible.

She is lucky she is able to feel ‘Teary and upset’. In many countries she would have received a death sentence and not be feeling anything

Dennehy, it is argued, should be compensated “to afford just satisfaction” for the breaches of her rights.

Its a shame we can’t compensate the three men she murdered “to afford just satisfaction” for the breaches of their rights

My view is that unless family of the victim forgives the murderer, the murderer should be punished

A crime has been committed. Other than an “impact statement” how the family/victims of any criminal offence feel is immaterial and should have no impact on sentencing.
I know in other countries money changes hands between offenders and the victims of families, in my opinion that is barbaric and primitive.

surfer – Member

My view is that unless family of the victim forgives the murderer, the murderer should be punished

A crime has been committed. Other than an “impact statement” how the family/victims of any criminal offence feel is immaterial and should have no impact on sentencing.
I know in other countries money changes hands between offenders and the victims of families, in my opinion that is barbaric and primitive. [/quote]

Yes, you have no say in the sentencing as this is democracy. Majority rules!

Imagine majority decide death that should be funny. Referendum on that? Quick someone please start an on-line petition … ya, take that! On-line petition.

Barbaric and primitive? Nope. It’s how the nature work.

Actually it is more humane to put criminals (the murderers) to sleep rather than trying to “rehabilitate” them.

Think about the cost!
Think about the money!
Think about the hassle of keeping them alive.
FFS! Think about the good sleep you can have without having to worry about being accused of double standard.
😮

In the 18th century, philosopher Immanuel Kant

Kant was a third rate hack with a few good ideas that were lost in the rest of his work, Schopenhauer ftw.

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4uivPpzCGo[/video]

Kant was a bit of a boozer….

Tom_W1987 – Member

In the 18th century, philosopher Immanuel Kant

Kant was a third rate hack, Schopenhauer ftw. [/quote]
Where are the BritLand philosophers? Shakespeare? 😆

John Locke.

Who, respectfully, shits all over Kant as well. 😆

Love a STW thread hijack,upset murder chat becomes argument about which philosopher was best!

Tom_W1987 – Member

John Locke.

Who, respectfully, shits all over Kant as well.

Who then got shite all over by others … 😆

Ya, democracy didn’t he say something about that?
Would he be in LibDem if he was alive?

franksinatra – Member
Love a STW thread hijack,upset murder chat becomes argument about which philosopher was best!

😆 Told you they think too much.

Okay…hypothetically speaking:

A person is convicted of murder and they are imprisoned by the state. That person is denied their basic human rights, therefore they are subjected to inhumane treatment by the judicial system and by prison officers.

Now, let’s just say that the prisoner happens to be innocent – a fact that is proven some years after imprisonment.

How would they appeal their sentence?
Are prison officers morally culpable for cruelty?
What would be the acceptable level of compensation for the prisoner once the unsafe conviction is overturned?

At what point does the popular desire for revenge tip the system so that it becomes corrupt and unjust?

Now, I’m not suggesting for a moment that Ms Dennehy is innocent – she’s been convicted by a jury of her peers and is serving sentence. Her solitary confinement may be necessary for her own safety and/or for the safety of other prisoners/staff. But she should be allowed to challenge the decision, even if only for answers.

I do not agree that we should euthanize people that society finds distasteful. I would refuse to sit on any jury if the final judgement was a person’s life, however much I found them offensive.

PJM1974 – Member
Now, let’s just say that the prisoner happens to be innocent – a fact that is proven some years after imprisonment.

FFS! You move on or get whatever compensation you can or punish those that make the wrong decision.

In far east we consider that as “bad luck” (bad luck to be sentenced wrongly) then move on or seek revenge whatever shite that makes them forgive/forget.

Revenge is always sweet but then we also know that revenge cannot end so the choice is up to the individual. If they choose revenge then so be it that’s their problem and they can exterminate each other as much as they like.

Human are not saint you know … we are ZM!

That’s how things are … 🙄

I do not agree that we should euthanize people that society finds distasteful. I would refuse to sit on any jury if the final judgement was a person’s life, however much I found them offensive.

What if society decides to bring back human extermination legally because someone has done the online petition … ya, petition this and that …

Would you comply with the majority rule considering that this is a democratic society? Ya, ya … now you cannot sleep. Ya. 😆

Okay…hypothetically speaking:

A person is convicted of murder and they are imprisoned by the state. That person is denied their basic human rights, therefore they are subjected to inhumane treatment by the judicial system and by prison officers.

Now, let’s just say that the prisoner happens to be innocent – a fact that is proven some years after imprisonment.

How would they appeal their sentence?
Are prison officers morally culpable for cruelty?
What would be the acceptable level of compensation for the prisoner once the unsafe conviction is overturned?

At what point does the popular desire for revenge tip the system so that it becomes corrupt and unjust?

Now, I’m not suggesting for a moment that Ms Dennehy is innocent – she’s been convicted by a jury of her peers and is serving sentence. Her solitary confinement may be necessary for her own safety and/or for the safety of other prisoners/staff. But she should be allowed to challenge the decision, even if only for answers.

I do not agree that we should euthanize people that society finds distasteful. I would refuse to sit on any jury if the final judgement was a person’s life, however much I found them offensive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Clark

To put that into context,

Clark was convicted in November 1999. The convictions were upheld at appeal in October 2000, but overturned in a second appeal in January 2003, after it emerged that Dr Alan Williams, the prosecution forensic pathologist who examined both of her babies, had incompetently failed to disclose microbiological reports that suggested the second of her sons had died of natural causes.[7] She was released from prison having served more than three years of her sentence. The journalist Geoffrey Wansell called Clark’s experience “one of the great miscarriages of justice in modern British legal history”.[8] As a result of her case, the Attorney-General ordered a review of hundreds of other cases, and two other women had their convictions overturned.

She then killed herself once she was released.

FFS! You move on or get whatever compensation you can or punish those that make the wrong decision.

In far east we consider that as “bad luck” (bad luck to be sentenced wrongly) then move on or seek revenge whatever shite that makes them forgive/forget.

The far east also uses medicines that have no objective benefit and they continue to rely on what is no better than witchcraft.

In regards to the death penalty, government should not listen to just the emotional petitions of people. Ochlocracy is not democracy – it is a debasement of democracy and rationalism, democracy serves to protect people from themselves – and should be based on enligtenment and humanistic values IMO. There are plenty of rationalist arguments (public health being one) against capital punishment – there are very few that scientifically support it.

FFS!

I don’t see why my post warranted an “FFS”. There’s no justification for an offensive response if you disagree with a forum member, that’s basic manners – As the moderators have themselves put it:

The ethos of this forum must be one of mutual respect for everyone who uses it. You may argue and debate with anyone but when the argument becomes heated or abuse begins to creep in, then you will have crossed the line. If you don’t step back from it then you will likely be moderated.

Back to your response Chewkw:

…you move on or get whatever compensation you can or punish those that make the wrong decision.

Really? You simply accept the judgement with a fatalism that whatever will be, will be? Then once the conviction is overturned – assuming that your human rights allow for a retrial – you take the compensation and shut up?

In far east we consider that as “bad luck” (bad luck to be sentenced wrongly) then move on or seek revenge whatever shite that makes them forgive/forget.

With the greatest of respect, we are not in the Far East nor are we discussing the treatment of a prisoner in the Far East.

This is purely about her segregation, no other aspect of her treatment. Apparently she was segregated for her part in a plot (with others) to escape by cutting the thumb off a prison officer and use it to get through biometric scanners.

Prisoners are segregated if they pose a threat to other prisoners, or vice versa, or a threat to prison staff through their association with other prisoners.

They need a way of fast-tracking these kind of vexatious cases so lawyers can’t milk a year’s worth of legal aid out of it.

More pertinently, she clearly has an extreme personality disorder verging on a diagnosable mental illness. Perhaps they should look again at whether Broadmoor is a better option.

I am uneasy about the title of the features article on the right of that BBC news link…