Is it ok to kill a paedophile?

Whatever our views on kiddy fiddlers we simply cannot allow people to take the law into their own hands. The law is there to protect all of us including criminals. I have no sympathy with fiddlers but that doesn't mean I have the right to go out and kill them.

i picked the wrong word in my post when i put story i wasn't really thinking about the case mentioned more about the subject of paedophiles in general to be honest and what my own feelings would be Lusty.

Norpig wrote:i picked the wrong word in my post when i put story i wasn't really thinking about the case mentioned more about the subject of paedophiles in general to be honest and what my own feelings would be Lusty.

I'd feel exactly the same way if my kids were involved - and would probably go after the bastard as well but I wouldn't expect any leniency in the law if I murdered the ****.

But this case does raise an interesting question about judge's "freedom of interpretation" of the law.

As I understand it, we make the law (via our elected representatives ha ha) and the legal system's role is to enforce/enact it.

Judge's are given some leeway on interpretation and sentencing so they do have to listen to the particulars of the case which is fair enough - if applied objectively.

But this decision reeks of a judge applying his/her own prejudices and that begs the bigger question i.e. to what extent do judge's favour their own social class/religion/educational and cultural background when sentencing?

A further question might be "to what extent are judges appointed on the basis of their social class/religion/educational and cultural background in the first place?

In this case, no doubt the judge would argue that the woman was so driven to distraction that she was temporarily insane and unaware of what she was doing - that's the only defence that I am aware of that could justify such a lenient sentence.

However it just doesn't wash with me. For her to get so worked up in the first place she must have been aware that the guy was a paedo. Would she have killed the guy without that knowledge? If not, why did she go to the guy's house - with a knife in her hand -  in the first place? She knew what she was doing and she's guilty IMO - but the judge will have to cover his/her ass in order to avoid accusations of exercising individual prejudices at the expense of justice.

And if (s)he gets away with it we should all be worried.

the sentence does seem to be playing to the crowd and maybe the Judge is trying to put across something to make himself seem like a man of the people and in step with public opinion. A judge is meant to be impartial and only judge in facts and not opinions which doesn't seem the case in this case.

Don't get me wrong one less paedophile is fine with me but if you do the crime you have to expect the appropriate time

I certainly won't lose any sleep over a paedophile getting killed but tbh I wouldn't feel comfortable with my kids walking past a murderer in the street any more than a paedophile. 

In a couple of years this nutter will be on the street again and may feel it's worth doling out some more vigilante justice as the sentence is hardly a deterrent.

If someone abused my kids though, although I wouldn't go out looking for them with a knife, if I was put in the same room as them, they would get a serious kicking. 

After that I would be happy for them to spend the rest of their lives in jail.

As for the death penalty, it's been discussed on here many a time. My feelings are that if you kill someone, you should live out your days in prison. The problem is it doesn't work that way. If you are a danger to other people I don't have a problem with them losing their lives over innocent peoples lives.

Life should mean life but it just doesn't.

When the person that killed my sister in law gets out of prison, which he inevitably will, I will fear for my family as he's threatened us many a time in the past. All it takes is for him to say all the right things and get a doctor to say he's fine and out he comes. We are then looking over our shoulders for the rest of our days and have to move away from where we live to be safe, and even then would still worry. How can that be right?

It's not right '58 and you shouldn't have to worry about it, but in a society which believes in rehabilitation there is a price to pay both in terms of the actual cost of lengthy internment and the damage to the victims.
I know a couple of rehabilitated ex-cons and have given one a chance by employing him in the past so I believe rehabilitation is possible and won't advocate the death penalty (with perhaps a few exceptions in extenuating circumstances)
That said, the prison system is skewed with prisoners rights extending beyond human rights. 
The solution I would propose would be to have shorter sentences for first time offenders but make prison a miserable place to be, ideally offshore. The primary issue is that the prevailing attitude amongst criminals seems to be that prison isn't so bad and is therefore neither a punishment nor a deterrent for many. Prison in Qatar for example is horrendous and often leads to death and I'm absolutely certain that this directly correlates to the almost zero crime rate.

Can such a prison system be created without losing our humanity? I think so if you look at the UN declaration of human rights accepted internationally and apply them as the criteria.

Obviously being in prison they would have to forego articles 3 (liberty) 13 (freedom of movement) and articles 20 (freedom of association) and 22 (right to social security) are definitely up for discussion and there are others e.g. right to education which are also debatable, but overall there is nothing in there that says you can't do your utmost to ensure prisoners would not like to return to prison whether through isolation or rehabilitation or both.
If we can change attitudes towards going to prison, then there could be a significant impact on crime levels and therefore victim levels - and overall financial cost to society.

A society which puts people in prison is de facto depriving them of their human rights most notably their liberty, so what is to say that other human rights can't also be challenged in order to make the prison system less attractive to criminals - other than what we as a society decide?

I'm not advocating punishment, but I sure don't like the idea of prison being viewed as a bill-free paid holiday.

Maybe the government told her she'd do a short stretch in jail, get a million quid when she comes out, a monster off the streets, saved the government money- NHS- food- heating- bed-A levels-etc etc.

Nobody loses and it seems like a business plan to me.

Joking.

[quote="scottjames30"]Maybe the government told her she'd do a short stretch in jail, get a million quid when she comes out, a monster off the streets, saved the government money- NHS- food- heating- bed-A levels-etc etc.

Nobody loses and it seems like a business plan to me.

Joking.[/quote]
This is good i like.

Emma Jansen 1 wrote:

scottjames30 wrote:Maybe the government told her she'd do a short stretch in jail, get a million quid when she comes out, a monster off the streets, saved the government money- NHS- food- heating- bed-A levels-etc etc.

Nobody loses and it seems like a business plan to me.

Joking.

This is good i like.

As somebody that kills people for a living, you don't surprise me.

Joking