Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

maybe there is justice after all

38 replies

2shoescoveredinhearts · 13/02/2010 12:28

here

OP posts:
Tryharder · 13/02/2010 12:53

Mmm. It's hard to feel sorry for him isn't it?

scottishmummy · 13/02/2010 13:12

no that wasnt justice.it was violence meted out by another

prisoners do hate certain crimes and will dish out attacks

nickytwotimes · 13/02/2010 13:14

Oh, yes, that's solved things, hasn't it?

Of course I feel no sympathy for the guy, but to be pleased about this is a bit off imo.

Justice would have been the poor wee kid being removed from the situation before he was hurt.

Tortington · 13/02/2010 13:15

i've always maintained that there should be no special segregation or treatement to protect child abusers in prison.

its just a known fact that if you are locked up for child abuse - your gonna get fucked up.

onagar · 13/02/2010 13:23

You don't protect prisoners for their sake. You do it for ours.

If we are the kind of people who put them in together hoping this will happen we are no better than they are and might as well let them all out.

onagar · 13/02/2010 13:26

Actually if this is appropriate punishment

"Barker, 6ft 4in and 18 stone, was left screaming in pain after suffering burns to his face and arm"

Then let's do it legally and have the judge say "as part of this sentence you will be taken from this place and burnt horribly"

Anyone going to vote for that law?

I'm in favour of capital punishment, but I draw the line at torture.

YoureGorgeous · 13/02/2010 13:26

i see what you mean custy but i think legally mean you cant send someoen to prison with the presumption they may be killed there!

also think of stefan kisszko

scottishmummy · 13/02/2010 14:31

the measure of a liberal society is how you deal with deviancy,and crime.as unpalatable as crime against children is (and in particular the baby peter case was abhorrent)one cannot claim moral high ground by state murdering as punishment

illgetyoubutler · 13/02/2010 18:04

no sympathy from me.

StewieGriffinsMom · 13/02/2010 22:01

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

MillyMollyMoo · 13/02/2010 22:51

"WE" aren't behaving as criminals are though, the state has not attacked him or sentenced him to death.

Unfortunately he thought he was a tough guy torturing a baby and he came up against a real tough guy who showed him what it felt like, so what ?

McBitchy · 13/02/2010 22:53

i don't like it.... not right - i suppose the perpetrators are all angels

feel like quoting the bible tbh

scottishmummy · 13/02/2010 22:58

an unprovoked attack isnt justice.justice has an intellectual component,and jurisprudence helps guide thinking

izzybiz · 14/02/2010 09:37

It may not be right or justice, but Karma sprung to mind for me on reading that this morning.
Have no sympathy for that thing at all.

BelleDameSansMerci · 14/02/2010 09:41

My first thought on seeing this news item was "good". Then, immediately, I thought "er no, that's not right, etc". It's the difference between the emotional response and intellectually knowing that this isn't how things should be. Isn't it?

lou031205 · 14/02/2010 10:36

No, my first response was 'poor guy'. Regardless of what he has done. He is already paying the sentence issued to him for his crime by the criminal justice system. He is now also a victim of crime.

LibrasBiscuitsOfFortune · 14/02/2010 10:42

That is not justice, it's mob mentality. It's also not karma.

""After the attack everyone was in good spirits, knowing someone had hurt Barker. The guy who did it will be getting applauded everywhere he goes now.""

There is no circumstances where violence should be applauded.

PfftTheMagicDragon · 14/02/2010 10:42

you could quote the bible, McBitchy, but it wouldn't be relevant.

Pennies · 14/02/2010 10:44

McBitchy - "an eye for an eye"...?

No sympathy here. Not one iota.

lou031205 · 14/02/2010 10:47

"An eye for an eye" was actually imposing a limit to reasonable action, not suggesting it. It is where the legal notion of 'reasonable force' originates.

PavlovtheCat · 14/02/2010 10:49

I think there is a difference between not feeling sorry for him (which I don't) and thinking this is justice (which i don't).

What he did was wrong. But those people in prison are not exactly innocent people (although i agree, some might be). We do not know the crimes of those who inside with him, or of the person who attacked him in order to elevate in the prison hierachy. There are certain rights of passage in a prison to make your time easier, and I doubt very much if this action was anything other than that. So it is not justice, it was one criminal hurting another.

queenoftheslatterns · 14/02/2010 10:50

i agree with pavlov, i dont feel remotely sorry for him, but dont believe that this is justice.

PavlovtheCat · 14/02/2010 10:53

it makes me laugh, the moral reasoning of criminals. I work with criminals and do some cognitive behavioural work. We look at moral reasoning - it is funny how many of them feel their crime was ok, or that some crimes are 'ok' but not others, and the different levels of where they would draw the line. If we get them to unpick that, they realise that the crime they think is 'ok' is actually not.

No crime is good, whatever is it, whoever does it.

queenoftheslatterns · 14/02/2010 10:54

and wanted to add that when i found out what scummy cousin and her twathead bf had been doing to her sons my initial response was "i hope someone f*cks them up" but it will be going to court soon enough and the legal system will deal with them, if they get hurt in prison i shant shed a tear and a tiny emotional part of me might cheer, but i shant pray for it.

PavlovtheCat · 14/02/2010 10:55

(of course, when i say 'they realise' i mean that very loosely. If it was that easy i would be great at stopping re-offending!)