life should mean life,

[silkcityuk2]

that is not correct at all ..there can be a second charge offered and that is manslaughter..nearly all people are first charged with murder intentional or not..there are hundreds of cases were the charge of murder has been brought aginst people involved in fights which led to death without premeditation..that is a fact.... and plenty of others who have been executed and were later found not to be the person responsible..that is a fact..thats why theres a jury ...to decide the facts and if they cant they can be given the option by the judge of manslaughter..thats a fact ..and why there is an apeal system if the verdict is wrong that is a fact..and thats why there are groups of lawyers who act pro bono for the purpose of helping people wrongly convicted thats a fact..it would not be helpfull if they had been executed would it thats a fact..,

but if its manslaughter then its not murder is it
if the murderer intents to kill then hang them or as ken says make them spend there living days in prison untill they die

no mercy for murderers . life should mean life

[silkcityuk2]

im rather surprised that a man as astute as you are .should say such a thing.im very surprised..and shocked as i thought you were far more sensible than to agree with a trolls post

ohh is ken a troll then minnie?
thats not very nice is it?
can you prove it

[PATRIOT73]

so kens a troll now...........wat u had for tea ken
often wundered wat trolls eat

[silkcityuk2]

i was actualy refering to you simon is it?

ohh so i am a troll
prove it?

[PATRIOT73]

ohh so i am a troll
prove it?

ok si............wat u had for tea...................shank of lamb or the full sheep

[PATRIOT73]

don't trolls eat. erm , toilet rolls?

baby trolls?>..........

[leadhillsonline]

you agree with a incorrect statement?
its only classed as murder if there is intent
pray tell me what you think they should serve for murder?

My O/H used to teach in prisons, including CAT B (Lifers). He worked with people who were very nasty and many who were not.

One eg. Man late teens grabs a screwdriver while being pursued by drunk mob; when caught, he stabs one pursuer who dies later. He has a criminal record but no history of violence, but because he used the screwdriver as a weapon, he gets life. Well documented, his story is accepted but not as self defence. Yes he should serve time - he agrees as he refused to plead self defence anyway, but life?

Another eg., Man late forties gets life for vicious assault leading to death. It's the latest of many. This time the judge sets a minimum term, he will be 65 before he's even considered for parole, seems appropriate.

The problem is that dangerous people often qualify legally for release while people who have basically been stupid serve the same or sometimes more!

The EU has argued that for human rights, sentances should be fixed with an expected amount of parole - assuming good behaviour. But I miss "Her Majesty's Pleasure". Any crime with intent that risks the life of another should attract HMP, ie. they don't get out until they have demonstrated remorse, understanding and the capacity to live without violence. It's the only way to say to stupid drunk kids - "there are real consequences". Stop them early, prevent them from becoming killers and get them back in the community and making a real contribution.

Hopefully, the day will come when no violence with intent is considered acceptable or less serious than any other violent intent. People need to understand that any violence can kill and should be treated seriously regardless of whether or not a death results - attempted murder is no different from murder where intent is involved.

As for capital punishment - you can't rehabilitate a dead person, you can't get the truth of other crimes from a dead person, you can't get inside the mind of a dead person, you can't understand a dead person so you can't learn to prevent the evil!

As for 100% proof - no such animal. Too often expert witnesses or "reliable" evidence are found to be wrong. The Birmingham six were "100%" guilty, only they weren't; same for Stephan Kischo and for too many others - you can't release a dead person. At least these were alive for their justice.

[silkcityuk2]

ok si............wat u had for tea...................shank of lamb or the full sheep

nah shh dont mention my name

[silkcityuk2]

My O/H used to teach in prisons, including CAT B (Lifers). He worked with people who were very nasty and many who were not.

One eg. Man late teens grabs a screwdriver while being pursued by drunk mob; when caught, he stabs one pursuer who dies later. He has a criminal record but no history of violence, but because he used the screwdriver as a weapon, he gets life. Well documented, his story is accepted but not as self defence. Yes he should serve time - he agrees as he refused to plead self defence anyway, but life?

Another eg., Man late forties gets life for vicious assault leading to death. It's the latest of many. This time the judge sets a minimum term, he will be 65 before he's even considered for parole, seems appropriate.

The problem is that dangerous people often qualify legally for release while people who have basically been stupid serve the same or sometimes more!

The EU has argued that for human rights, sentances should be fixed with an expected amount of parole - assuming good behaviour. But I miss "Her Majesty's Pleasure". Any crime with intent that risks the life of another should attract HMP, ie. they don't get out until they have demonstrated remorse, understanding and the capacity to live without violence. It's the only way to say to stupid drunk kids - "there are real consequences". Stop them early, prevent them from becoming killers and get them back in the community and making a real contribution.

Hopefully, the day will come when no violence with intent is considered acceptable or less serious than any other violent intent. People need to understand that any violence can kill and should be treated seriously regardless of whether or not a death results - attempted murder is no different from murder where intent is involved.

As for capital punishment - you can't rehabilitate a dead person, you can't get the truth of other crimes from a dead person, you can't get inside the mind of a dead person, you can't understand a dead person so you can't learn to prevent the evil!

As for 100% proof - no such animal. Too often expert witnesses or "reliable" evidence are found to be wrong. The Birmingham six were "100%" guilty, only they weren't; same for Stephan Kischo and for too many others - you can't release a dead person. At least these were alive for their justice.

though i agree with some of what you have said
why should a convicted murderer have any rights?
they took away the life of another
going to prison is just a badge for a lot of young offenders and something to brag about
the punishment must fit the crime

[silkcityuk2]

well thats easy heres is a picture of a troll..do you simon look like it

erm no i a bit more fatter than that and not so good looking
perhaps i may suggest its you