Stoke City star jailed for life

Dan wrote:Oh right, thought he was some sort of serial killer. If he shows remorse for what he has done and proves he is willing to make a change and become a positive member of society then I see no reason why, after his initial sentence has been served, that we should see if he is fit to be released. If not, he remains in prison.

How can anyone prove that? If they do it once, they can do it again.

Kill the cunt, there's too much liberalism when it comes to criminal offences

George wrote:

Dan wrote:

I know what he did. I know she won't ever have that chance and that is the saddest thing about this.

But if you're looking for us to base our justice system on revenge, then I'm afraid we've moved too far away from that. We're not in the Dark Ages anymore. The only suitable revenge for this kind of action would be capital punishment, but what's the point of that?

He's murdered a young girl and your judgement is that he should get life in prison for it, regardless of whether he reforms into a positive member of society or not. What would your sentence be for worse cases, a mass murderer perhaps? A child molester? Those are inherently worse cases, should they not deserve a longer punishment?

Well, you got me there. I respect your opinion because it might be the best way to handle people in these cases. However, it saddens me when the criminal gets treated like they are the victim.

Personally, I feel that he lost the right to be treated like a human when he murdered the girl.

He wouldn't be treated as the victim, he will be made to live with what he has done. He will serve jail time for it and no sympathy will be given to him at all. If there is a change in his character, a remorse for what he has done then I believe he should be given a second chance.

The majority of people who end up in jail here go onto re-offend

Pico wrote:

Dan wrote:Oh right, thought he was some sort of serial killer. If he shows remorse for what he has done and proves he is willing to make a change and become a positive member of society then I see no reason why, after his initial sentence has been served, that we should see if he is fit to be released. If not, he remains in prison.

How can anyone prove that? If they do it once, they can do it again.

The large amount of people who end up in jail here go onto re-offend and end up back in the slammer, Norway has a 'cushy' prison system according to many, yet their re-offending rate is 16%. Ours is 44%. I think we should look to see how the Norwegians do things, because our system is not working and becoming more and more overcrowded.

Dan wrote:

Bushido wrote:Dan, just think what his mental state is to stab somebody 60 times.

I know. But many people have committed murder in the heat of the moment and have shown to be perfectly sane. It's a horrible thing and they deserve time in jail for it. But for me the purpose of prison is not revenge, but to reform.

It's also to remove dangerous people from society for our own protection. If he can do something like this, how can we be certain that he won't do it again?

The idea of giving people second chances sounds brilliant in theory. But, personally some crimes are unforgivable. He doesn't deserve it.

Dan wrote:

Pico wrote:

How can anyone prove that? If they do it once, they can do it again.

The large amount of people who end up in jail here go onto re-offend and end up back in the slammer, Norway has a 'cushy' prison system according to many, yet their re-offending rate is 16%. Ours is 44%. I think we should look to see how the Norwegians do things, because our system is not working and becoming more and more overcrowded.

I wasn't on about Norway's justice system, I was comparing the two murderers. They both murdered minors in a cold, brutal fashion - why should this guy be let off because he happens to be 18?

Pico wrote:

Dan wrote:

The large amount of people who end up in jail here go onto re-offend and end up back in the slammer, Norway has a 'cushy' prison system according to many, yet their re-offending rate is 16%. Ours is 44%. I think we should look to see how the Norwegians do things, because our system is not working and becoming more and more overcrowded.

I wasn't on about Norway's justice system, I was comparing the two murderers. They both murdered minors in a cold, brutal fashion - why should this guy be let off because he happens to be 18?

George wrote:The idea of giving people second chances sounds brilliant in theory. But, personally some crimes are unforgivable. He doesn't deserve it.

It was a crime of passion, there's a difference between people like him that do stuff like this in a fit of rage who show real remorse and people who don't show any remorse at all, cold blooded killers.

menalawyerguy wrote:

Dan wrote:

I know. But many people have committed murder in the heat of the moment and have shown to be perfectly sane. It's a horrible thing and they deserve time in jail for it. But for me the purpose of prison is not revenge, but to reform.

It's also to remove dangerous people from society for our own protection. If he can do something like this, how can we be certain that he won't do it again?

It's not just about allowing people a second chance in prison, it's about ensuring that people are safe if they are given it. I'm not an expert in that area so I obviously wouldn't be able to say. There are criminals who should never see the light of day, but mostly they are proud of what they have done, aggressive inside and show no intention of ever acting like a decent human being on the outside. On the other hand, there are criminals that completely change when they go inside, but that comes down to the prison system they're in. I wouldn't put much hope in it happening here because ours is a fucking joke.

I'd like to see us communicate with the likes of Norway about how they handle these types of cases. They're system is proven to be working, ours is a mess.

Stabbing someone SIXTY times crosses the line of "oops, shouldn't have done that." That is fucked up.

Pico wrote:

Dan wrote:

The large amount of people who end up in jail here go onto re-offend and end up back in the slammer, Norway has a 'cushy' prison system according to many, yet their re-offending rate is 16%. Ours is 44%. I think we should look to see how the Norwegians do things, because our system is not working and becoming more and more overcrowded.

I wasn't on about Norway's justice system, I was comparing the two murderers. They both murdered minors in a cold, brutal fashion - why should this guy be let off because he happens to be 18?

It's not about whether he is 18 or not. It's about whether he is willing to make a change and become a positive member of society. If he doesn't, he can rot in prison for life. I don't care what his age is, if he is willing to make a change to his life and is no danger to the public, then what is the point in wasting money on keeping him locked up?

Pico wrote:Stabbing someone SIXTY times crosses the line of "oops, shouldn't have done that." That is fucked up.

You don't get it.

Pico wrote:Stabbing someone SIXTY times crosses the line of "oops, shouldn't have done that." That is fucked up.

You're oversimplifying it too much.

Pico wrote:Stabbing someone SIXTY times crosses the line of "oops, shouldn't have done that." That is fucked up.

Correct. Stabbing someone 60 times isn't a quick action. Why didn't he feel guilt or any emotion apart from rage while he was murdering the girl? He clearly isn't mentally stable.

Dan wrote:

Pico wrote:

I wasn't on about Norway's justice system, I was comparing the two murderers. They both murdered minors in a cold, brutal fashion - why should this guy be let off because he happens to be 18?

It's not about whether he is 18 or not. It's about whether he is willing to make a change and become a positive member of society. If he doesn't, he can rot in prison for life. I don't care what his age is, if he is willing to make a change to his life and is no danger to the public, then what is the point in wasting money on keeping him locked up?

Ahem

Dan wrote:It was a horrible thing that he did and thoroughly deserves to spend a long time in the slammer, but for the whole of his life? He could change completely within prison, feel a deep regret for his actions and completely reform his character, but he'll still be locked up for something he did when he was a teenager?

He's 18, he's an adult. It's not like he had a temper tantrum.

Hopefully this happens to him:

Dan wrote:

Pico wrote:Stabbing someone SIXTY times crosses the line of "oops, shouldn't have done that." That is fucked up.

You don't get it.

Cam wrote:

Pico wrote:Stabbing someone SIXTY times crosses the line of "oops, shouldn't have done that." That is fucked up.

You're oversimplifying it too much.

And you should go hug some trees you liberal hippy tossers.

Pico wrote:

Dan wrote:

It's not about whether he is 18 or not. It's about whether he is willing to make a change and become a positive member of society. If he doesn't, he can rot in prison for life. I don't care what his age is, if he is willing to make a change to his life and is no danger to the public, then what is the point in wasting money on keeping him locked up?

Ahem

Dan wrote:It was a horrible thing that he did and thoroughly deserves to spend a long time in the slammer, but for the whole of his life? He could change completely within prison, feel a deep regret for his actions and completely reform his character, but he'll still be locked up for something he did when he was a teenager?

He's 18, he's an adult. It's not like he had a temper tantrum.

Again, you don't get it. It's nothing to do with him being a teenager. Look at the context of the quote before picking out bits that fit your agenda.

Once again, you've completely ignored the statement where I've stated that he must reform his character before being even considered as a potential for release.

And that hippy comment proves it..

What the fuck..

This debate is quite deep and in-depth for a football forum.

It's incredibly naive to think that anyone like that would "reform" their character.

You actually think it's impossible to reform? That criminals will remain criminals for life?

Dan wrote:You actually think it's impossible to reform? That criminals will remain criminals for life?

In the case of a nutjob who stabbed the same person 60 times, yes.

A lot can happen over the course of a lifetime, it's certainly not impossible for people to change.

Dan wrote:A lot can happen over the course of a lifetime, it's certainly not impossible for people to change.

I'm sure he'll go to prison, find god, then spend the rest of his life helping old ladies cross the road.

I hope he does. That would be a positive thing for everyone. Would make him a better citizen than yourself, no?

Dan, if he 'reforms' his life, does that justify the crime he committed? If not, what is the point of allowing criminals like him the opportunity to change?

George wrote:Dan, if he 'reforms' his life, does that justify the crime he committed? If not, what is the point of allowing criminals like him to change?

No, nothing justifies what he has done. He will live with that for the rest of his life.

I don't believe anyone benefits from looking at a case, giving a sentence to the criminal and saying you'll serve x amount of years and we release them then. Most of the time, when a criminal gets released from one of our prisons, they will re-offend and end right back in where they came from. It doesn't benefit anyone.

I think prisoners should be given the opportunity to change. I could argue that, what's the point of locking up people for life? Their life ends there, why not just kill them? That's something I don't agree with either, for a number of reasons.

But, regardless of their crime, they should be in prison doing something positive. It's a waste of money otherwise. If they choose not to reform and change, then they will remain there. They aren't accepting any help given to them, so they won't be helped. If, however, a criminal shows remorse for their crime, shows that they are willing to make the steps necessary to become a positive member of society, then we should allow for that. Every criminal is different. Many people have been banged up for one moment that is completely out of character, that they've regretted from the moment they did it. Should they be locked up for life? Or should they be given the chance to overcome what they did and come out again?

It's not something anyone would blag their way through, it will be a time-consuming effort that profiles the criminal mentally, physically and emotionally. Then, if the judgement is passed that they are a positive member of society they should be allowed to return, then they should be given that chance. If you offer the chance of redemption to one prisoner, it must be offered to all of them, regardless of their crimes. If they say no, so be it. They should never be allowed out.

Obviously, there are crimes that carry the 'life' tag and criminals that will serve 'life' behind bars. I'm torn on the issue. While I agree that some criminals should never, ever be released, it contradicts my thoughts on prisoners being allowed the chance to 'redeem' themselves to society. And I use redeem incredibly lightly there.

An extra 5-10 years should be added on for rape too.

He's 18, she's 15. They obviously had sex

Dan wtf?

Stabs girl 60 times

"doesn't deserve a life sentence"