to be disappointed that the inmate who attacked Ian Huntley didn't do a better job?

[Vallhala]

Unfortunately it appears that Huntley will survive.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8579226.stm

AIBU in thinking that it's a pity that the harm caused to Huntley wasn't fatal?

Agreed.

But this logic gets you accused of not being sympathetic to the victims. (hate that emoticon)

As I understand it (1) there is evidence that if prisoners have too little to do they throw tantrums and set fire to things, making life quite awkward for the prison officers. That's why they have this stimulation. I fully agree though that they should be gainfully employed, either with hard graft or with studying to make themselves more useful to society.

As I understand it (2), and this is somewhat anecdotal, some of the residents of Broadmoor make shoes. Unfortunately they cannot sell these shoes in Britain because they are branded with the mark of Satan so they have to be shipped aboraod to where, presumably, the population is less discerning. I know this from a cleaner that worked at Broadmoor, but he's a nice chap and I've no reason to doubt him.

branded with the mark of satan? Which is? and why?

My apologies - that phrase should have been in inverted commas to indicate the perception of the British market to such items.

Maybe they should have an interview with Ian Huntley in Hello magazine, since so many of you are so interested in what he has or has not been up to.

If people had any sort of decency whatsoever, they would stop buying newspapers about him, and true crime books, and discuss their lynch mob desires in general political terms, rather than getting all over excited about individual murders.

Your interest is sickening.

'If we agree with criminals dishing out 'justice' then we have all descended to their level. '

Totally agree.

TheLadyEvenstar when a criminal is convicted of a crime in court the jury must base their verdict on the fact they believe the person to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Therefore, when a murderer, or rapest, or paedophile, or similar is convicted it is absolutely certain that they have committed said crime. There are miscarriages of justice. Sally Clarke, Angela Cannings, Donna Anthony, who were all found guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt.

So are you saying that you would rather they died than Huntley lived? Given Huntley killed innocent people, how does your argument that it is ok to kill the occasional innocent person in order to rid society of the guilty ones work?

That's the bit that doesn't make any sense wannaBe.

I'd love to know why there is the assumption that prison as it is- not a 'just punishment' - the idea that prisoners are all just lounging around at tax payers expense etc... I am sincerely glad this man is locked up my only question is how do really know/ assume prison is so cushy - IH has been attacked nine times and has attempted suicide three times - surely this is enough for the baying crowd to be satisfied he is ( albeit self-inflicted) living a hellish existence ?

I am not above a bit of blood lust and also tend to think "well that is what you deserve..." but the day we as a society start allowing criminals to just sort it out amongst themselves is the day we are in real trouble.

TLES: Nope, people who support the death penalty are stupid, vindictive and illogical.
Because the death penalty doesn't work in terms of stoppin crimes of violence - there were as many, if not more murders when the UK did have the death penalty. And there is some evidence to suggest that rather than acting as a deterrent, the existence of the death penalty can increase the level of violence in some crimes where the perpetrator feels it's too risky to leave witnesses alive. ANother negative factors is that juries start refusing to convict obviously guilty people because the jurors either oppose the death penalty altogether or are simply not prepared to have a hand in the ending of another person's life - so Murdo the Murderer gets let off to go and do it again.
The presence of the death penalty also debases the whole of society. If a person can;t see that, then the person is stupid. And what passes for his/her brain is likely to be an unpleasant sludge of drooling sentimentality and ill-focussed spite looking for a target. It's a shame that such a mindset is so encouraged by the Government and the media, but it does tend to make the stupid easy to manipulate.

It costs so much money to execute, look at Texas where people spend 20 years on death row appealling, plus you cannot have the state going around killing people it's really not right, murders today, tax evasion tomorrow ?
I know how people feel about Huntley and John Venables etc but deep down I wouldn't vote for capital punishment to return.

capital punishment will never return. it is barbaric.
strange how the people throwing insults arround on these threads are always the ones who are the anti violence people!
just because someone doesn't hold the same opioin as you dosen't mean they are stupid or suchlike, just makes you rude.

am not going to cheer about a rapist attacking a murderer

'justice' should not be meted out by criminals, we have courts for that

Just thought I weould throw in hoping for educated debate that paedophiles do not choose to have sexual feelings for children it is something they are programmed - in their genetics - many spend years fighting their feelings - just as homosexuals did years and years ago.

This is an illness - it is incuarable and there needs to be research and maybe some sort of medical intervention to address their situation to stop them offending. Medical castration maybe but putting someone to death because they are born to act in a certain way is distasteful to me anyway - it will do nothing but undermine the values of society and create anarchy and vigilantyism.

2shoes, you're right, someone having a different opinion doesn't necessarily make them stupid, but comments such as "TBH i would rather 1 innocent be killed than a 1000 Huntley's living" are stupid, and say a lot about the person posting them.

He did it as far as I am aware because he had touched one of them sexually and relaised he was in big trouble.

Being a paedophile isn't something they can choose - it cannot be cured - it has to be contained and managed and it would be a sad day when you kill someone because they don't come up to society's idea of what is normal or acceptable.

Maybe we could have a test to see if they are paedophiles at say 10 - most children who are will exhibit some sort of strange behaviour by then - do we put them to death then to save society or do we hope that they are one fo the paedophiles who don't act on their urges? Or do we just drown them at birth?

What about other things that we deem morally wrong - extreme violence for example? Do we get rid of the little sods as soon as they start acting out or do we realise that in a good humane society that is not the answer and try and do something to contain or manage the situation?

i posted this on the other thread and the JV thread, and others have said it here, the man who attacked Huntley didn't do it through having some sense of moral responsibility he did it to become the next 'top dog' in doing so he will then leave himself open to attack, so someone else can become 'top dog'. This has nothing to do with justice/morals and everything to do with the heirarcy in prisons.

In answer to the calls on this thread for capital punishment, it didn't work as a deterant when we did have it and i would much rather live in a society which at least tries to help and rehabilitate those who comit crimes rather than just write them off.

Wannabe that was my comment so in your opinion what does it say about me?

For the record I am not ignorant, stupid, rude or uneducated. However i know my own mind, know what I agree with and what I don't, know what I do and don't like etc