Tarred & Feathered

Originally Posted by Ceri JC

It's an inevitable consequence of our failing judicial system that people will take the law into their own hands. A large part of the "point" of law is that the victims feel justice has been done. If they don't feel this, it's hardly surprising (not that I condone it) they do something about it themselves.

I love this comment. Where exactly do you get your information from? Please tell me it's not the tabloids, as it sounds like a quote from the "Daily Mail" Im Sorry if this offends you but glib statements like this really annoy me. There are cases where the sentencing does appear to go wrong but for everyone one of these there are hundreds if not thousands that dont.

I respect your right to say it though.

back on subject, this sought of action really sends a chill down my spine and I do not condone it one bit. Its tar and feathers this time, but what if your son or daughter is caught scrumping and this particularly group decides that acid in the face is the order of the day on "their turf" for this particular offence.

Our whole system is innocent until proved guilty but this approach takes it to be the other way round!!!

[northwind]

Originally Posted by SoulKiss

This is about Vigilanteism, and how normal members of society are starting to feel that in order to get "Justice" they have to take matters into their own hand.

Eh... The person stating that this was the case was speaking on behalf of the UPRG, who're basically a front for the UDA- not that surprising that he'd deny their involvement. The BBC article didn't bother to mention that I notice. But since they're so heavily involved in drug trafficing and dealing- much more profitable than terrorism- they've got a huge amount to gain from competing dealers being taken off the street, so they're natural suspects. I bet you a pound this wasn't random members of the public.

Of course, setting yourself up selling drugs in competition to an irish paramilitary organisation isn't that bright.

Taring & feathering is quite a 'light' punishment for NI

The usual would be bullets through the ankles, knees and if you've really wound someone up... Well, lets not go into that

Originally Posted by Rog

I love this comment. Where exactly do you get your information from? Please tell me it's not the tabloids, as it sounds like a quote from the "Daily Mail" Im Sorry if this offends you but glib statements like this really annoy me.

Nope, I'm a broadsheet man myself (The Times). Not that I'm not aware of the myriad of failings of the media. My girlfriend works in TV, so I daresay I have a better insight into the sort of misleading that goes on in the media as a whole (TV is not much better) than most.

Lets look at my statement again shall we and see which bits you actually disagree with?

"A large part of the "point" of law is that the victims feel justice has been done."

Hopefully it's not that. I hope you don't feel the victim has no right to expect a (just) degree of punishment for the person who wronged them. If you're questioning that this is the case, fair enough, I think it's an odd POV, but you're entitled to it. If, however, you're contesting the fact that part of the historical reason for law and order is to vindicate the feelings of the victim, you're not just of a different opinion, but you're wrong. Law was formed because people want those who do wrong to be punished, but at the same time, it's preferable to have justice meted out dispassionately by some third party (the courts and judicial system), rather than the victim/their friends or family who are likely to be incensed and retaliate disproportionately: mob rule, lynchings, not to mention them not being that bothered about evidence in the spur of the moment, etc.

"If they don't feel this, it's hardly surprising (not that I condone it) they do something about it themselves."

Are you contesting that it's surprising that people do things themselves when they feel the authorities are failing in their duties? As I have said, this doesn't mean you condone it: I don't. What I mean is, why is anyone surprised by this- you don't need a doctorate in psychology or an in-depth understanding of human behaviour to work out that people will do this, the history of vigilanteism in almost all cultures in the world shows us that people do this.

back on subject, this sought of action really sends a chill down my spine and I do not condone it one bit. Its tar and feathers this time, but what if your son or daughter is caught scrumping and this particularly group decides that acid in the face is the order of the day on "their turf" for this particular offence.

This probably is the UDA removing a competitor, rather than a group of men in the neighbourhood concerned with the well being of their kids. As I said in my post, I do not approve of this sort of vigilanteism (even if it is 'legitimate' vigilanteisim rather than a criminal turf war as this probably is). In a similar vein, if you leave a bike with the keys in the ignition in a rough bit of town, it's unsurprising when it is stolen. That doesn't mean you approve of those who steal it, merely that you have a modicum of empathic ability and can understand that some people might.

Originally Posted by Rog

There are cases where the sentencing does appear to go wrong but for everyone one of these there are hundreds if not thousands that dont.

Let's be generous and say you meant the minimum ('hundreds', so a ratio of 1:200). You're saying that for every 200 inmates, only one is given a "wrong" sentence? So what about the small (generally estimated at 2-3%) number of people wrongfully imprisoned. That's 5 people for every 200 who got a "wrong" sentence alone. Then look at the people who were given a disproportianately light (or harsh) sentence. Precise figures for this are impossible (who, other than a judge/magistrate decides with authority what is harsh/light?), but let's be conservative and say perhaps 1 in 100 prisoners are given an unduly harsh sentence and 4 in 100 are given an unduly light sentence (due to a very good lawyer, pressure due to overcrowing in prisons, soppy judges giving an unduly light sentence due mitigating circumstances, or just a simple poor decision by a judge). Even with those extremely narrow estimates, we're looking at 7/8% of the prison population who received unjust sentences. I'd say that's a lot more than "one in hundreds or thousands" of cases.

Still, statistics are often abstract things and seldom convey the real meaning of what's going on. Now, let me tell you a true story and you tell me if the sentence was fair:

A lad from our school was attacked by a rival school. A few lads from our school arrived and fought them off, taking the injured boy to safety. We were all around 16/17 - school kids being kids you might say. What makes it a bit nasty is one of the elder brothers of the rival school (a man in his mid 20s with a history of violent crime and previous convictions) was watching the fight from out of his house which overlooked the street concerned. He went upstairs, got a samurai sword down from his bedroom. He came out of the house, conceleing the sword. He brandished the sword feet away from my friend (who, incidentally, hadn't thrown a punch and merely held back the man's younger brother who was trying to attack someone) and swung for my friend's head, quite clearly intending to strike a killing blow. My friend put his hands up and had his hands severely cut, tendons severed and profuse bleeding. The crowd froze in shock and surprise. My friend turned to run away through the crowd, the man tried to strike him in the head again (this time from behind). Luckily, as my friend ran he almost got outside his reach and even more luckily he had a leather jacket on, so the blade merely marked the back of his jacket where it landed.

The crowd surged forwards, protecting my friend, and swarming the man, pinning him down whilst the police were called. My friend, even years later, still lacks fine motor control in some fingers due to the damaged tendons, not to mention the visible scarring. He works in prop making, so it effects his work, not to mention the lack of dexterity works against him in his favourite hobby, DJing.

The police arrived, carted the man off, they found him with the sword, his prints on it, the victim's blood on it, dozens of witnesses. There was no doubt as to the man's guilt. How long did he get for (what should have been) attempted murder? 6 months. Somehow the court appointed lawyer managed to convince the court that this man was acting to defend his younger brother, that he happened to have the sword next to him and grabbed it without thinking, that he never intended to do anything other than scare my friend by "waving it about menacingly" and 'accidentally' caught him with the blade (twice)!

Unsurprisingly with the man out so soon, people were unhappy. People who saw what had happened wanted to kill the man, or at the very least, firebomb his house and then beat him senseless. It was only the good sense and intervention of the victim that prevented this from happening. I don't approve of what they wanted to do and I applaud my friend for stopping them from doing it, but that doesn't mean I cannot understand why they wanted to. They wanted to because they felt justice had not been served. Do you think they would have wanted to kill him if he had been imprisoned for 5+ years instead?

Originally Posted by Rog

Our whole system is innocent until proved guilty but this approach takes it to be the other way round!!!

Certainly. This is one of the prime reasons why mob rule is wrong and undesireable. People see the red mist, act as part of a mob rather than individuals and make rash (and often wrong) decisions. Going back to my point about why the law exists, this is why it is preferable to have people feeling that the law does a good job, to avoid this sort of thing occuring.

So, that only leaves the following bit of my statement, "It's an inevitable consequence of our failing judicial system that people will take the law into their own hands."

Again, I hope you now see that I don't approve of it, but that I do believe our judicial system fails (far too often) to do justice and people (wrongly) choose to take action to rectify this themselves.

Wow, that was a long one!

Originally Posted by Ceri JC

So, that only leaves the following bit of my statement, "It's an inevitable consequence of our failing judicial system that people will take the law into their own hands."

Again, I hope you now see that I don't approve of it, but that I do believe our judicial system fails (far too often) to do justice and people (wrongly) choose to take action to rectify this themselves.

Wow, that was a long one!

you see this is what I like about this forum, no flaming but a complete and well thought out rebuttal.

Anyway, Ceri I think that you may have misinterpreted what I was getting at. I dont disagree that there are many cases where the sentencing/punishment metered out seems to us disproportionate to the crime. But I stand by what I said, as your statement above, to me, suggests that our judicial system is failing wholesale, which I dont believe is the case.

I never thought you approved of it and I apologise if you thought this is what I was saying.

On the point of your friend, the way you describe it would appear that the sentence was totally unacceptable. But this is only on your statement, the whole point of the judicial system is that as much relevant evidence and witnesses are brought forward, presented and cross examined. It is then up to the jury to make a decision on the guilt or not of that person. No system is without flaws and whether you agree with it or not, the jury obviously felt this was the right decision.

In short, the media as always, only concentrate on those flaws giving a false picture of the true day to day workings of our system of Justice.

[tinpants]

Originally Posted by RhythmJunkie

Am I implying? Oh fer gawds sakes go do the research I did!
My son was doing some topic on drugs at school and I researched this stuff for weeks.

Whats the f***ing difference between a prescribed opiate pain killer from a doctor and an opiate high from a drug dealer? I'll tell you what...the pharmacy gets a bigger mark up!
Oh and you can thank Mr Bush for securing the future supply from Afghanistan.

You got magistrates doing coke and tv presenters on pills and the local beat having a crafty joint between shifts jeeeeezus I've seen it with my own eyes and you come back at me with..."are you implying"!

..and no I'm not paranoid I just walk around with my eyes open, unlike most people!

First off, you obviously need to do more thorough research than you did initially. Methinks you know not of what you speak.

The difference between an opiate painkiller and some gear bought on the street is, I would have thought, fairly obvious. Prescription drugs are given for a reason; a specific complaint. Not just because some scrote wants a quick hit. What an individual does with said 'script once they get the drug from the chemist is out of the hands of the Dr AND the pharmacist so I fail to see how you can say its down to medical professionals. As a matter of interest, I've been to dozens of opiate overdoses in my paramedic career and none, thats NONE of them have been due to prescription drugs. Indeed, when it is highlighted that a particular analgesic drug is dangerous, its use is closely monitored and can, in the case of Co-proxamol, be withdrawn in some area. The active opiate in co-prox is dextropropoxyphene, a rather strong opiate that can depress respirations from a relatively small dose especially if mixed with alcohol.

Drugs bought on the street are invariably cut with other substances to make it go further. Its these additives that are a large part of the problem. I've heard of heroin being cut with brick dust, Vim, car body filler, talcum powder, animal excrement and salt to name but a few.



Btw, the muffled voices you can hear are due to the fact that you have your head jammed firmly up your @rse. Remove it or leave it there. Its up to you, but don't EVER accuse me ( either directly or indirectly) of selling drugs.

Originally Posted by Rog

you see this is what I like about this forum, no flaming but a complete and well thought out rebuttal.

Yes, me too. This is the most "grown up" forum by a long way and I like that (most! )people here can have differing points of view without it degenerating into slagging each other off and wandering off topic.

Originally Posted by Rog

Anyway, Ceri I think that you may have misinterpreted what I was getting at. I dont disagree that there are many cases where the sentencing/punishment metered out seems to us disproportionate to the crime. But I stand by what I said, as your statement above, to me, suggests that our judicial system is failing wholesale, which I dont believe is the case.

I never thought you approved of it and I apologise if you thought this is what I was saying.

On the point of your friend, the way you describe it would appear that the sentence was totally unacceptable. But this is only on your statement, the whole point of the judicial system is that as much relevant evidence and witnesses are brought forward, presented and cross examined. It is then up to the jury to make a decision on the guilt or not of that person. No system is without flaws and whether you agree with it or not, the jury obviously felt this was the right decision.

In short, the media as always, only concentrate on those flaws giving a false picture of the true day to day workings of our system of Justice.

Yes, I think you're right, in light of that, my original post does make it sound like our judicial system is completely hopeless and no sentences are just, hence people resorting to vigilanteism. I hope my (rather lengthy) post clarifies my POV that a lot of the time, the system gets it right, but that I do feel:
a) There are a (not insignificant) number of cases where it gets it wrong.
b) An unfortunate knock-on effect of the judicial system getting it wrong is that otherwise very reasonable, decent people decide to take the law into their own hands (although as mentioned, I don't think that's the case here).

What a pleasure to debate something civily, as you no doubt would face to face, without someone hiding behind the anonymity of the internet and being a total **** about it.

See I'm cool.
Always am.
Tongue in cheek.
Until insulted.

but don't EVER accuse me ( either directly or indirectly) of selling drugs

Good job you're not a pharmacist then!
I'd like you to concentrate here on the word "selling"!

What an individual does with said 'script once they get the drug from the chemist is out of the hands of the Dr AND the pharmacist so I fail to see how you can say its down to medical professionals

Not sure what that has to do with my argument! My point was that a doctor, specialist nurse, psychiatrist, pharmacist can "supply" opiates legally with no fear of being victimised for "supplying" drugs! No tarring and feathering in the street etc..
As for the statement "out of the hands of the doctor", how often do we read of celebrities hooked on "prescription painkillers" (opiates?) in rehab clinics. They didn't get that way buying from a dealer....they got that way by a doctor allowing them to get that way!!!
No vigilante mothers protecting their kids there then, banging on the doctors door demanding they stop supplying their kids with drugs?

Its the same...whether you like it or not...its the same!!!!!

However much 'you' hate the word 'sell', in the eyes of the law, 'supply' is the same as 'sell'.

The dealer supply's an opiate to a customer and the doctor supply's an opiate to a customer, that's what we patients are called these days "customers"!

The customer asks the doctor for the opiate and the doctor agrees to allow the supply of that opiate to the customer using a receipt called a prescription and a middleman called a pharmacist.
I can be jailed for "supplying" that same opiate even though no money changes hands even for pain relief? So 'supply' and 'sell' are the same you have to agree! I cannot spell it out any simpler than that!

I find it quite alarming that a person can hide behind the fact that someone else actually does the hands on selling bit and so feel completely dis-connected from the supply process somehow.

British law....supply...sell....the same thing!

What the customer does with the drugs is arbitrary to the discussion. Two people supply the same product to customers one legally protected the other is not. Forget the talcum powder which can be found in many prescription medicines, its the main ingredient the opiate that I'm refering to here!

First off, you obviously need to do more thorough research than you did initially. Methinks you know not of what you speak.

That kind of remark is why I come back at you. Nothing but insults! I can do insults!

I recommend you start and end with the governments own statistics then come back on this thread and duly apologise.
You are the one who knows not of what they speak!

As for the head up the @rse insult....my kids are much better at winding someone up!
Get some practice!

Oh one more important query. You said...

I've been to dozens of opiate overdoses
in my paramedic career and none, thats NONE of them have been due to
prescription drugs

So what do people OD on for suicide these days? Just curious!

Yes, me too. This is the most "grown up" forum by a long way and I like that (most! )people here can have differing points of view without it degenerating into slagging each other off and wandering off topic

I'm ok until someone starts having a go making out I'm feckin stupid!
I'm not going to sit here and take it!

You are right Ceri most people on here are respectful but some are just downright rude!
Like I said..."I can do insults"!

my original post does make it sound like our judicial system is completely hopeless and no sentences are just

I don't think using 60 year old men from middle class backgrounds, who have little or no idea at all of the scumbag world we have to live in to judge people is a good idea.

We need younger judges who live in the real world, people who understand what its like living on a council estate.

I think a black person should only be judged by black jurors! That way racial bias is totally eliminated whether deliberate or otherwise!

Maybe young jurors (over 18 of course) should judge young people for a fairer trial.

I don't think the present system is 100% efficient it needs tweaking!