Is it ok to kill a paedophile?

It's in the news today that a woman took a knife to the home of a 'past' convicted paedophile - and killed him. The bloke was under investigation and awaiting a further trial for more alleged kiddy fiddling.

The women is a mother but apparently non of her kids had been touched by the nonce.

The judge at the trial said basically the women had 'lost control of herself' and sentenced her to just three and a half years for murder, in which she will probably serve just less than two years.

Now I could understand any parents wanting retribution if any of their children had been abused but I can't quite get my head around of someone carrying a knife, using it, killing someone who hadn't touched their kids and the courts basically saying that's ok, just serve two years.

Is it ok to carry knives around in the street then? Is it ok to kill people and get just two years inside - or is it only so lenient if you pot a paedo, or maybe a rapist and/or a murderer?

Probably the woman as done her community a great service but if you kill someone surely you should pay the price of imprisonment for it too, serving just as long as for any other murder.

I guess if this bloke had a daughter and in a couple of years time after the woman had done her two years in gaol, she went round the womans house with a knife and stabbed her because she 'lost control' when meeting the person who killed her dad, that she would only get two years inside too?

Or would she get less because she killed a 'killer' instead of a 'peado'? Are murderers more revolting than peados or less?

Has the right thing been done in this case or not? One paedo less but is it somewhat of a green light to carry knives and kill people for just a two stretch?

What do you think?



Story here -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-34390935

Your notion that "the woman as (probably) done her community a great service" troubles me.


A lot.


If you're going to try and start a moral debate about the rights and wrongs of this, you can't glibly throw in statements like that.


That's editorial comment.


And for the record, of course you can't just go round stabbing people because you don't like them (for whatever reason) - that's just fucking ludicrous.

It's wrong on every level. Let the law deal with it.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/aug/30/childprotection.society





Why is this thread on BW Banter?

boltonbonce wrote:Let the law deal with it.

Yes this.

But it would help if the punishment for the crime was that they were burnt at the stake.

Don't agree Cops.

I've done jury service and I wouldn't have trusted at least four of the other jurors to look after my dog, let alone decide whether or not someone should live or die.

No death penalty here and that's a good thing in my book.

I don't believe in the death penalty,but I'm sick of seeing people sentenced to 25 years,only to be released after 8.

I will move this thread to the right section so there is no confusion between paedos and our footballers.

Breadman wrote:I've done jury service and I wouldn't have trusted at least four of the other jurors to look after my dog, let alone decide whether or not someone should live or die.

The judge decides on the punishment (like with this woman), not the jury.

I'm talking about absolute water tight cases though.

No better than the paedophile if you just choose to kill them. They should never be let out of prison though

boltonbonce wrote:I don't believe in the death penalty,but I'm sick of seeing people sentenced to 25 years,only to be released after 8.

I agree

karlypants wrote:I will move this thread to the right section so there is no confusion between paedos and footballers with a surnane johnson allegedly

Copper Dragon wrote:

Breadman wrote:I've done jury service and I wouldn't have trusted at least four of the other jurors to look after my dog, let alone decide whether or not someone should live or die.

The judge decides on the punishment (like with this woman), not the jury.

I'm talking about absolute water tight cases though.

Unless they say "Yeah, you know what...I did it" it's never water tight though, is it?

And that's where juries come in.

And after listening to some 18 year old bint trying to argue that a profoundly deaf and dumb 8 year old girl, halfway up a mountain in Pakistan had "probably encouraged the guy to have sex with her" because she thought that "8 year old girls could well be sexually active nowadays" because of what she'd seen on Facebook.....

....I worry about the sort of people who are allowed to sit on juries in the UK nowadays.

What this Woman did was to do something most of us...... if we're being honest here....... would like to do to these animals, and I bet there is no-one on here who watched the Huntley trial thought good he got life, there's not one person with an ounce of compassion that would have been sorry to see that bastard  publicly hanged, so quit with the moral high ground, any Man/Woman convicted of kiddy fiddling should never and I mean never see daylight again, as has been proven these animals cannot be cured they serve their time and come out to offend over and over.

Does that mean my suite's a non-starter?

Breadman wrote:Does that mean my suite's a non-starter?

Behave.

Sorry. 

If you're a psychopath looking for a thrill kill it obviously makes more sense to bump off the local kiddy-fiddler than any Tom Dick or Harry. You get more sympathy in court, you get support from a lot of the public, it's basically trendy to appear sadistic towards child sex offenders. Just look at the reaction on Facebook, Twitter etc to any stories about people looking at child porn.

So she's probably quite smug sat in her cell tonight, but if it hadn't been the perve, would it ultimately have been somebody innocent? Well taking the circumstances into account, I'd say she's no vigilante, just a murderer.

I can't believe that "losing control of yourself" is or ever has been a defence for murder.

If insanity was proven, fair enough, but I'm not aware that it has been in this case. Seems to me that the judge hasn't retained any degree of objectivity in this and has opened the door for anyone with a temper - or claiming to have a temper - to murder whoever they want and get off lightly.

It's a very emotive story and of course it's not right to kill someone for whatever reason but if he'd touched my kids.....

Norpig wrote:It's a very emotive story and of course it's not right to kill someone for whatever reason but if he'd touched my kids.....

Surely the judge has to decide whether murder was committed or not, regardless of who the victim is? 

Or is it one law for some in this country?