Vigilante's..eye for an eye and the like...

Originally Posted by wyrdness

According to The Times, Mr Cunningham spent four months in jail in 2001 for raping a schoolgirl under 13 and was arrested again in 2002, although no charges were pressed.

With that sort of history I'd want to stab him. Four months for raping a girl under 13, he's lucky he only got stabbed and not set on fire as well.

Originally Posted by Lozzo

With that sort of history I'd want to stab him. Four months for raping a girl under 13, he's lucky he only got stabbed and not set on fire as well.

Surely, that's a separate issue? That's an issue of an undue lenient sentence? Blame the prosecutor or the judge.

Originally Posted by DanAbnormal

Depends. If he had sexually assaulted my child, even if it was years ago, I would probably still want to kill him.

Exactly what I was going to say, if you were the parent of that child then you probably wouldn't care how long it took before you got your revenge even if this did mean sinking to a lower level. In fact thinking about it, waiting until he'd regained his life back and thought he was being accepted in the real world maybe just made the revenge all the more sweeter...

Originally Posted by plowsie

Assumption is the mother of all feck ups.

+1, like LP says, you have to be seriously fubar'd in the head to do anything like this in the first place, leopards don't change their spots.

[punyXpress]

[quote=Mr Speirs;1716770]100% is not right. No-one should take the law into their own hands.
This is why we have courts, jurys and prisons so that the person is found guilty and sentenced appropiately.

For years now the courts have been imposing grotesquely lenient sentences for all sorts of crimes ( excluding Mr Martin? ) to the extent that most respect for the courts & government are now zero.

When a reasonable sentence IS imposed, the offender is released early, often to promptly reoffend. Those who sanction these early releases should themselves suffer sanctions when new offences take place - that would focus their minds a little!

Perhaps he mutilated himself and comitted suicide?? I know, very unlikely!

So, if it was the abused or a relative of the abused that killed him, how should they be fairly punished for after all they did commit a crime???

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

And not that I agree in the slightest bit with an eye for an eye stance but this wasn't even an eye for an eye - this was torture and murder for rape - in addition to the punishment imposed on him for that crime by the judicial system - which undeniably raises question of leniency but firstly that's a seperate issue and secondly we don't know the answers to those questions and the details surrounding the case.

[quote=punyXpress;1716868]

Originally Posted by Mr Speirs

100% is not right. No-one should take the law into their own hands.
This is why we have courts, jurys and prisons so that the person is found guilty and sentenced appropiately.

For years now the courts have been imposing grotesquely lenient sentences for all sorts of crimes ( excluding Mr Martin? ) to the extent that most respect for the courts & government are now zero.

When a reasonable sentence IS imposed, the offender is released early, often to promptly reoffend. Those who sanction these early releases should themselves suffer sanctions when new offences take place - that would focus their minds a little!

I've been through this argument so many times already and doubtless everyone's heard it already but the point you're trying to make is that harsh penalties prevent the crime.

So if we had the death penalty would that prevent murders? Just like in the US, that crime free utopia?

How about even harsher penalties for lesser crimes, like for example, what if we were to hang draw and quarter those who steal - like we did in the middle ages? Was there no crime as a result in the middle ages? Or did those who steal then go on to murder as well (may as well settle a few scores, either way I'm dead if they catch me...)

Put it another way - if the penalty for rape is torture and death by angry mob then it is not in the rapist's interests to keep their victims alive - they stand less chance of being caught if they kill the witness for a start. This is not intended to diminish the crime of rape in the slightest which is undeniably horrific, thankfully not one myself or my immediate family have been a victim of and as such not a crime of which I will ever fully understand the impact to the victim, although I have no doubt it's utterly devastating. What I think I am reasonably safe in saying however is that on balance, after the passing of considerable time, being raped and left alive is better, if only fractionally, than being raped and murdered.

Police are hunting the killers of a former child sex offender who was found brutally stabbed to death.
The victim, whose mutilated body was found at business premises in Wandsworth, south London, also suffered non-fatal injuries to "other parts of his body".
He was found naked and covered in blood in his caravan on the site.

I'd not want to share headspace with someone capable of this. Wouldn't appreciate walking in on the aftermath either.

[Mej]

.........

**** happens to bad ppl, I will not loose sleep over it tonight... although it is upleasant.