Prisoner admits attempted murder of Ian Huntley

[Puckoon]

To paraphrase Mario Puzo: "They're all animals anyway - so let them lose their souls".

[seafoid]

Fair enough.
Im of the opinion though that anyone who hurts/ abuses/ murders a child is fair game for whatever retribution will come their way. I would have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever nor could i care less what would happen someone.
The issue i would have is that if i was inside for whatever reason i dont see how id feel the need to take it upon myself to kill the person. If it was a member of my family certainly and id make no apologies for it but i dont see how some randomer in jail can have the support of people for killing a sc**bag.
Granted if he had killed huntley id be glad he got what was coming to him but at the same time does it not just make this fella a murdering sc**bag as well.
After reading this post it actually doesnt make much sense but its best way i can explain it (in me own head anyway)

It doesnt make much sense and you can't explain it because its essentially a stream of populist views you've strung together in an attempt to appear as though you are articulating your own opinion.

Seafoid, I suspect you had that article in mind when you started the thread!

No. I just found it. I was looking for the article where Erwin James explains how we was slowly rehabilitated . The bit where he talks about all the self hatred and worthlessness he felt as a murderer is very interesting.   

[tyrone girl]

Fair enough.
Im of the opinion though that anyone who hurts/ abuses/ murders a child is fair game for whatever retribution will come their way. I would have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever nor could i care less what would happen someone.
The issue i would have is that if i was inside for whatever reason i dont see how id feel the need to take it upon myself to kill the person. If it was a member of my family certainly and id make no apologies for it but i dont see how some randomer in jail can have the support of people for killing a sc**bag.
Granted if he had killed huntley id be glad he got what was coming to him but at the same time does it not just make this fella a murdering sc**bag as well.
After reading this post it actually doesnt make much sense but its best way i can explain it (in me own head anyway)

It doesnt make much sense and you can't explain it because its essentially a stream of populist views you've strung together in an attempt to appear as though you are articulating your own opinion.

Seafoid, I suspect you had that article in mind when you started the thread!

Right let me explain it  in as short a way as i can as it seems to annoy u that u cant make sense of it

I think they deserve whats coming to them. I dont care what happens them. Though feel that if someone not involved or with no direct reason to be involved kills them then they are a sc**bag also. Still would feel huntley got what he deserved.
Thats as clear as i can get it. As for a stream of populist views i have apparently put together, dont talk dung. I dont need to articulate my own opinion. It is what it is and doesnt need to be justified.

[screenmachine]

This thread just seems to be running in circles every few hours.  I don't think anyone is trying to say vigilante justice is right but in the real world it does happen and will continue to do so.  Like TG said I would think Huntley got what he deserved if he was done in.  On a similar note, I would not be upgrading his killer to hero status.  He would still be a sc**bag and if he was already in prison for a serious offence then I would imagine he has been a sc**bag for quite some time already and would not be too bothered with the results of his actions or the opinions of a few more people thinking he was a sc**bag.

I would imagine this guy carried out the attempted murder as he dislikes child killers/rapists, seen an oppurtunity and went for him.  I'm sure he didn't go in with the idea to impress people on the outside world or gain a few more disgruntled followers who now think he is a bigger sc**bag than before.  He probably done it for the sake of doing it to be honest.  Sometimes it's as simple as that and doesn't need an in-depth look into the psychology of the perpetrator.

[haranguerer]

Right let me explain it  in as short a way as i can as it seems to annoy u that u cant make sense of it

I think they deserve whats coming to them. I dont care what happens them. Though feel that if someone not involved or with no direct reason to be involved kills them then they are a sc**bag also. Still would feel huntley got what he deserved.
Thats as clear as i can get it. As for a stream of populist views i have apparently put together, dont talk dung. I dont need to articulate my own opinion. It is what it is and doesnt need to be justified.

I can make perfect sense of it - I did. It was you that said yourself you couldn't make sense of it 

And it is a string of populist views, and if you want it understood, you do have to articulate, and yes really, everyone should be able to justify their opinions.

Going on what you've said, yours is: They get what they deserve, but this isn't me justifiyng it because anyone who actually does what I think should be done, is also a sc**bag  Now thats having courage in your convictions!!

Screen  - people did say vigilante justice is right. TG above is one simple example - 'fair game for whatever retribution comes their way'. Just because she seems to also say its wrong in the same sentence doesnt change that, it just makes the overall effect: 

[screenmachine]

If TG thinks a child killer is 'fair game for whatever retribution comes their way' surely this is her basing her own opinion on the situation rather than trying to justify vigilante justice. 

To be honest this whole discussion could be put down to differences of opinion, I don't think anyone is trying to (or is going to) convince anyone else that vigilante justice is right/wrong.

[tyrone girl]

How many times do i have to tell u. I couldnt care less what happens Huntley, if someone kills him i couldnt care less. Id like to think he suffered. If someone wanted to do it, again i couldnt care less. Anyone who commits a murder is obviously a sc**bag. Should this be someone directly related to it however i could see their reasoning in doing it.
If some randomer murders anyone regardless of what i think of the person they have murdered i would still think they are scum.
By the way i dont need to justify my opinion to you, or to anyone. Why should i? Its my opinion and i dont feel like i need to justify to you why that is the case.
I dont care why you have the opinion you do.

[Hardy]

What if there was no such thing as a hypothetical situation?

[Up The Middle]

How many times do i have to tell u. I couldnt care less what happens Huntley, if someone kills him i couldnt care less. Id like to think he suffered. If someone wanted to do it, again i couldnt care less. Anyone who commits a murder is obviously a sc**bag. Should this be someone directly related to it however i could see their reasoning in doing it.
If some randomer murders anyone regardless of what i think of the person they have murdered i would still think they are scum.
By the way i dont need to justify my opinion to you, or to anyone. Why should i? Its my opinion and i dont feel like i need to justify to you why that is the case.
I dont care why you have the opinion you do.

Im of the same opinion fcuk him, in my view he gave up any human rights he ever had when he drowned 2 young girls in a bath the sick cnut. I hope he dies a very slow and horrible death.

[haranguerer]

By the way i dont need to justify my opinion to you, or to anyone. Why should i? Its my opinion and i dont feel like i need to justify to you why that is the case.
I dont care why you have the opinion you do.

No, I guess you dont.

You're probably best not posting them on a discussion board though if not. If you dont feel the need to justify your opinions, and you say you dont care about why I have my opinion, it begs the question, wtf are you doing posting on this thread?

Screen - she essentially said she supports the action but not the person who carries it out. My issue with TG isnt with her support for summary justice or otherwise; thats an opinion (altho if you dont want them questioned...welll  see above) its that its a ridiculously stupid post

[HiMucker]

Right let me explain it  in as short a way as i can as it seems to annoy u that u cant make sense of it

I think they deserve whats coming to them. I dont care what happens them. Though feel that if someone not involved or with no direct reason to be involved kills them then they are a sc**bag also. Still would feel huntley got what he deserved.
Thats as clear as i can get it. As for a stream of populist views i have apparently put together, dont talk dung. I dont need to articulate my own opinion. It is what it is and doesnt need to be justified. 

I can make perfect sense of it - I did. It was you that said yourself you couldn't make sense of it 

And it is a string of populist views, and if you want it understood, you do have to articulate, and yes really, everyone should be able to justify their opinions.

Going on what you've said, yours is: They get what they deserve, but this isn't me justifiyng it because anyone who actually does what I think should be done, is also a sc**bag  Now thats having courage in your convictions!!

Screen  - people did say vigilante justice is right. TG above is one simple example - 'fair game for whatever retribution comes their way'. Just because she seems to also say its wrong in the same sentence doesnt change that, it just makes the overall effect: 

You really need to get off your high horse.  Your dismissing TGs legitimate point of view which is quite clear.  She and others accept your opinion which I feel is valid.  We live in a world were people have different beliefs on certain issues, it does not mean one is wrong and one is right.  But you must understand why people would have such viewpoints.  For the record I don't agree with the article above.  Prison services shouldn't fail on the jobs they are paid to do, but I think it sanctimonious bullshit to say we should all be up in arms that some vile inmate has been attacked by another.  It is just plain human emotion to say "ah f**k them, they didn't even get close to what they deserved".  As for the politicians, they are only human as well.
  You said earlier when I asked you a question "it doesn't matter what you or I would do", so you could escape from revealing what your  own emotions would be in that same situation.  What you and I might do has everyhting to do with it, as this is what helps form our opinions and these actions in reality effect our family antherefore society.
Inmates attacking other inmates in prison might well be scumbags, but I think its foolish to think that people that would want to do this on the outside are scumbags also.  You will have people that will think its immoral, and are totally against violence, whether it be their religious beliefs or mindset.  But you then have other people, who will be amongst your friends and family, that morality does not come into it, that the only thing stopping them is the knowledge that their actions have consequences for them, ie a long prison sentence.  I also feel this argument is very circular, but this Utopian society were you can dismiss peoples opinions and emotions on vigilante attacks on sex offenders, child killers, and the most heinous of murderers doesn't not exist.  If offenders were given the sentences they should do, and people were climbing over the walls to get at them, then you could label them barbaric.

[muppet]

What if there was no such thing as a hypothetical situation?

[haranguerer]

I'm not on a high horse. The reason I have been questioning TGs stance is because it is completely contradictory. If she'd said, they deserve to die, and I dont care if they're killed in prision, I hope they suffer, then thats fair enough, thats an actual opinion. If she'd said, anyone who would carry out such retribution is a murdering sc**bag (altho she said she would if it was a member of her family), then that too is fair enough. To say both in the same sentence however is ridiculous -this is what I'm pointing out, not the error (imo) of either opinion. Its the moral equivalent of NIMBY ffs, which doesnt really work in moral terms....

The point about the emotion involved is this; There are very few black/white areas, and a lot of grey. What anyone does is influenced by mental state, emotion, circumstance, etc etc. And certainly, if it was a member of my family or someone close to me, I dont know how that could affect me, its certainly a likelihood I would want to kill the perpetrator or want them to be killed. Its irrleevant because what we would all do in a given situation isn't what society is formed on, nor can it be. We may all thinnk of ourselves as stong minded moral individuals who will do the best for each other, but in reality we will very often merely do what is best for ourselves when in that situation.

[seafoid]

If someone is a murderer does it mean they can never be rehabilitated ? Surely Martin McGuinness for example has done some good since the early 70s.  Or Gusty Spence RIP.

And what is the point of the justice system if summary executions are the way forward ?
Isn't the  whole point of the courts to take the emotion out of sentencing ?

[HiMucker]

I'm not on a high horse. The reason I have been questioning TGs stance is because it is completely contradictory. If she'd said, they deserve to die, and I dont care if they're killed in prision, I hope they suffer, then thats fair enough, thats an actual opinion. If she'd said, anyone who would carry out such retribution is a murdering sc**bag (altho she said she would if it was a member of her family), then that too is fair enough. To say both in the same sentence however is ridiculous -this is what I'm pointing out, not the error (imo) of either opinion. Its the moral equivalent of NIMBY ffs, which doesnt really work in moral terms....

The point  about the emotion involved is this; There are very few black/white areas, and a lot of grey. What anyone does is influenced by mental state, emotion, circumstance, etc etc. And certainly, if it was a member of my family or someone close to me, I dont know how that could affect me, its certainly a likelihood I would want to kill the perpetrator or want them to be killed. Its irrleevant because what we would all do in a given situation isn't what society is formed on, nor can it be. We may all thinnk of ourselves as stong minded moral individuals who will do the best for each other, but in reality we will very often merely do what is best for ourselves when in that situation.

Fully agree with this bit in bold, but I would like to think that there would be still a lot of fair minded people out there even without the rule of law.  Always think post apocalyptic films show what "decent" people can become without the rule of law.

In fairness I think there is a number of different arguments going on within this debate, and we might be guilty of rolling it into one.

Firstly you have:  Is it right that some of the most vile criminals are dealt extra judicial justice in prison?
No, I don't think its Right, but I don't have any sympathy for them, and don't really care.  However I can see if this was left to be the norm it would have an adverse effect on society

Secondly:  Is it right for extra judicial punishment on same said vile offenders when they are released from prison?
Again my answer would be as above

Thirdly:  Are Prison sentences too lenient on sex offenders?
I don't think that anybody would disagree with me when I say yes they bloody are!

Lastly, probably the most important point I was trying to make and has a fair bit to do with the sentencing argument:  Is it right for a man to protect his family from said same offender when they are released from prison even if this means them breaking the law?
In my opinion the answer is yes.  In my opinion the law has failed in its responsibility to protect the most vulnerable in society.  This should not be confused with the first or second arguments as they are dealing with punishment and in some peoples minds even justice.  This last point of the argument is solely dealing with protection.  And in my view, even with keeping your own emotions under wraps,  of what punishment and justice should be for these offenders, protecting your family is a separate issue.

Who knows I'm only a young man under 30 and maybe in another 30 years I will have a slightly different view.  And since we both likewee sayings  ,  a famous man once said "he who views the world the same at 60 as he did at 30 has just wasted 30 years of his life"

Gold star for whoever guesses who said it