yes reading this thread, I wonder why there is some much resistance to Sharia Law

seems like a case of bad PR to me

 

'Can't see the problem' - REALLY????

A baying mob, cheering at the injury or death of someone, and you 'can't see the problem with that'?

How would this make you very different to the criminal?

 

 

Nope, no problem at all

I'm not a criminal, there's your difference.

 

there really is no need for is there???

In all my time on here I have NEVER used that, I don't expect it in return

 

I don’t think it’s specific to people living in this country, I think you’d find people would go to watch anywhere in the world. To me, it says that deep down; most humans would go to watch another human be punished should it be deemed that they have done wrong. I think it’s part of our genetic makeup.

 

This is why we like to watch and have a good chuckle at those unfortunates in those Failarmy video compilations on youtube. But I digress, shove their rights up their **** and stone the *******.

 

I think you're right, but who and how many is debatable.

It would probably not be your normal person that would want to watch this. There are always some nasty *******s who revel in others pain, but I believe these are in the minority

 

So I’ll throw out an example.

How about the two guys who hacked up the solider in Woolwich back in May. I don’t think there’s any doubt they did it, so the argument of you can’t be sure it was them, goes away with this one.

So if they were sentenced to death by public hanging, I think it would be odds on that the place would be packed to the rafters and people would cheer when the floor dropped. I don’t think the people watching would be sick/nasty ****ers as you say; nor do I think it would be a minority. I’d suggest it would be the majority of normal everyday people thinking, “justice done”?

 

I personally wouldn't want to watch someone die regarless of the situation and if such a public execution were to take place, confirmation of "justice served" would be enough for me.

 

From what i understand the ruling means that you cannot sentance someone to life with no chance of release, whatever the circumstances. Don't see a problem. After 25 years, review the sentance and reject any plea for release. All a fuss over nothing.

 

The point is moot surely as the EU won't be around in 25 years time!

 

In America many criminals are sentenced to multiple life sentences and are sent to gaol for hundreds of years, way more than the average human life span.

I think in this country when we abolished the death sentence we should have made it clear that if you commit murder then you will lose your liberty for the rest of your natural life and not just for 25 years. Murderers and serial killers must above all else be punished for their crimes and the true punishment is them knowing that they will never be released.

 

God help us if that was true

Thankfully it isn't.

No way a majority of people would want to witness someone's execution. I cannot imagine anything more ghastly

 

Maybe not the majority but a hell of a lot would I'm sure.

 

And that makes it right does it?

dl

 

Depends on your opinion doesn't it. I don’t think it’s a right or wrong subject, never will be. Some people abhor the thought of capital punishment whilst others support it.
Clearly the move to public hangings is something completely different, but the point I made earlier was that plenty of people would turn out to watch and such people would come from all walks of life, backgrounds and cultures.

I still believe that were it to happen, that being the public execution of the likes of the two who killed the solider, it would be a well attended event, as it would be for Mark Bridger.

 

is a succinct response to your condescending moral high ground approach.

Expect the unexpected,

 

Utter utter fvcking rubbish

 

So why are such events so well attended in other countries then?

 

What Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, The Yemen, Nigeria and other well know "Liberal" democracies that show public hangings and beheadings

Mmmm, not sure - you may have a point

 

I would actually travel down from Scotland and pay decent money to see these two scumbags suffering.

I haven't forgotten what they did to that poor bloke!

 

If you can't debate like an adult, then why not try a different site?

 

I think you would be proven wrong...

 

A friend of mine who used to live in Saudi said that when there is a public execution people in the area were forced to watch

 

As I said, it's a fuss over nothing. All it means is a prisoner has to have the "chance"of a review. Rose west will never be released. As with all these challenges, the only winners are the lawyers. One go 40k in costs. Why.

What I would like to see is the term "life sentence" abolished because no one who gets a life sentence , does life. It's a disservice to the victims.

 

Just don't use the term "life" when sentencing. If the ECHR deems "life" as unclear for setting the prospect to review the release of a prisoner, set a minimum term at which point a review can be made, say a 100 years.

 

I don't think it's quite as clear as just having a chance of a review, legal challenges will mean it will lead to reviews being mandatory for lifers after X years, and then the review will need to be proven to be fair, not just a "no you're not coming out" but a full-blown assessment will have to take place (and with that comes a real chance of release) with water-tight justification if it doesn't go their way, otherwise their lawyers will be all over it.

 

Reading the press release from the echr, that's not how it sounds. They said any review is solely down to the nation state in its outcome.

 

If that's the case, then great - but isn't that what we have now? i.e. we effectively have a review that always says no.