Cyclist assaulted in Sheffield

p.k. wrote:
Ambrose Nankivell wrote:

I'd rather we stopped criminals offending again, in a manner which
minimises the cost to society, assuming that the crimes they commit
are ones that are harmful to society.

I'd rather they did not offend in the first place and part of that is
deterrence.

As would I. Most people don't offend (what with less than 50% of the
population having a driving licence ), but a substantial proportion of
those who do a nihilistic enough that it's no deterrent.

Like Jon said, it's support that's necessary.
--
Ambrose

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Ambrose
Nankivell gently breathed:
Pyromancer wrote:

If I broke into someone elses house in darkness and then got shot I'd
consider I'd got what I deserved, regardles of whether the weapon was
illegal or not.

That's your decision. Most national and all international courts
disagree with you.

Then the law clearly is an ass. If you're not safe in your own house,
where are you safe? Or is it just the illegality of the gun that
matters? If he'd gone after them with a perfectly legal kitchen knife,
would that have been better?

It really is time we once again started having punishments for crime
which actually punish the wrongdoers, instead of endlessly making up
excuses for criminals.

I'd rather we stopped criminals offending again, in a manner which
minimises the cost to society, assuming that the crimes they commit are
ones that are harmful to society.

Exactly. Show me one executed serial rapist who ever committed another
offence. But executing burglars would be somewhat excessive, the death
penalty should be reserved for violent serial sex offenders and some
types of murderer. However, punishments should make the offender
suffer. If they don't cause real and significant hardship, then we
might as well abolish the whole concept of criminal justice, allow
people to fortify their own homes, and save ourselves a fortune in
taxes.

--
- DJ Pyromancer, The Sunday Goth Social, Leeds. http://www.sheepish.net

Broadband, Dialup, Domains = http://www.wytches.net = The UK's Pagan ISP!
http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk http://www.revival.stormshadow.com

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Jon Senior
gently breathed:
On Tue, 02 May 2006 19:45:34 +0100, p.k. wrote:

I'd rather they did not offend in the first place and part of that is
deterrence.

And another part involves social support. I'd prefer;

"I don't commit crimes because I have no reason or desire to do so."
to
"I don't commit crimes because I'm scared of the consequences."

A very valid point. But what we have now is "I do whatever the hell I
like because even if they catch me I'll get a social worker and they'll
get me off with it".

You're also assuming that people are mostly good natured and reasonable.
It's my experience that there are a great many vicious evil *******s out
there who genuinely don't see what's wrong with beating someone
senseless for the sheer joy of violence.

Many people are thoroughly nice. That doesn't mean all people are.

--
- DJ Pyromancer, The Sunday Goth Social, Leeds. http://www.sheepish.net

Broadband, Dialup, Domains = http://www.wytches.net = The UK's Pagan ISP!
http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk http://www.revival.stormshadow.com

If I broke into someone elses house in darkness and then got shot I'd
consider I'd got what I deserved, regardles of whether the weapon was
illegal or not.

I don't think breaking windows and nicking video players is really a reason
to shoot someone to death.

Tony Raven wrote:

I can show you a few executed innocent people who were not resurrected
by their posthumous subsequent acquittal.

And I bet funeral expenses would be deducted from the compensation
payment...

R.

Tony Raven wrote:
I can show you a few executed innocent people who were not resurrected
by their posthumous subsequent acquittal.

You can *show* me‽ Isn't that a slightly frivolous reason to exhume someone?
--
Ambrose

Ambrose Nankivell wrote:

I'd rather we stopped criminals offending again, in a manner which minimises
the cost to society, assuming that the crimes they commit are ones that are
harmful to society.

Technically Tony Martin (no relative) achieved that particular aim.
Minimal cost to the state, no chance of reoffending.

I don't think that was quite what you meant though..

...d

"Pyromancer" wrote in message


8...

I had that Richard Littlecock in the back of my cab once.

Tim


--
Sent from Birmingham, UK timdunne at blueyonder.co.uk
'God's electrician sparked up the heavens once again, heading northbound
on the 7:10. And the lord said let there be commuters...' - Thea Gilmore
Look, mum, an anorak on a bike! Check out www.nervouscyclist.org

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Tony Raven
gently breathed:
Pyromancer wrote:

Exactly. Show me one executed serial rapist who ever committed
another
offence.

I can show you a few executed innocent people who were not resurrected
by their posthumous subsequent acquittal.

In the past, or under other countries systems, quite possibly. However,
if the death penalty was only applied to serial offenders, and only when
the proof by evidence (as opposed to hearsay, or circumstantial
evidence) was overwhelming, then the chances of a mistake are somewhat
massively reduced.

Do you believe that the kind of person who kidnaps and sexually assaults
a pre-teen child should be allowed to live? I don't.

Back on the topic of this thread, it is obscene that someone who carried
out such a sickening attack on a cyclist is getting away with it pretty
much unscathed. But that's a symptom of a system that puts the criminal
and their excuses first and doesn't care in the least about the victims.

--
- DJ Pyromancer, The Sunday Goth Social, Leeds. http://www.sheepish.net

Broadband, Dialup, Domains = http://www.wytches.net = The UK's Pagan ISP!
http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk http://www.revival.stormshadow.com

On Tue, 2 May 2006 21:29:56 +0100, Pyromancer
wrote:

That's your decision. Most national and all international courts
disagree with you.

Then the law clearly is an ass. If you're not safe in your own house,
where are you safe?

He was safe in his house. It was his property which was not safe.