Stoke City star jailed for life

Little more complicated than that, but if it helps you understand, then yes.

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

Have you ever considered that fiends like this individual are simply victims of their own circumstances?

If you think about it this man murdered that girl because of a series of unfortunate events that began with his conception. It is not his fault that he, as a result of his genetics an conditioning he was pre disposed to be capable of murder, after all.

He not exactly a 'star' is he?

Luisuarez7 wrote:

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

Have you ever considered that fiends like this individual are simply victims of their own circumstances?

If you think about it this man murdered that girl because of a series of unfortunate events that began with his conception. It is not his fault that he, as a result of his genetics an conditioning he was pre disposed to be capable of murder, after all.

Really? Everybody is capable of murder. If somebody was going to shoot one of your family members and you could stop him by lamping him one of the dome, you would. Or if there was any other way.

Really? Everybody is capable of murder. If somebody was going to shoot one of your family members and you could stop him by lamping him one of the dome, you would. Or if there was any other way. [/quote]

Of course I would. And everybody is capable of murdern but the people who actually end up murdering do so as a result of circumstances that were not under their control. As a result, the murderer is also a victim of his own circumstances.

Novi wrote:He not exactly a 'star' is he?

No, but his arse might be shaped like one by the time he gets out.

What a fucking psycho, deserves to be in prison for the rest of his life.

Luisuarez7 wrote:

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

Have you ever considered that fiends like this individual are simply victims of their own circumstances?

If you think about it this man murdered that girl because of a series of unfortunate events that began with his conception. It is not his fault that he, as a result of his genetics an conditioning he was pre disposed to be capable of murder, after all.

Boo fucking hoo.

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

Well I haven't killed anyone so no.

The argument that he's a kid is wrong. He can legally do anything a full grown man can at the age of 18 so he is very much an adult in the legal sense. If they prove that he isn't insane then he simply deserves to die. I am a strong advocate of the death penalty because in my eyes it is the only just action to take in many situations. The consequences he has to face should never be chosen because they seem to be the most beneficial for society, they should be chosen because they're the most fair. His death would be the ultimate justice for the girl. You want to clean up society so more maniacs like him aren't created then there are plenty of things that can be done that do not have to come at the expense of that girl's justice.

BladeGunner wrote:The argument that he's a kid is wrong. He can legally do anything a full grown man can at the age of 18 so he is very much an adult in the legal sense. If they prove that he isn't insane then he simply deserves to die. I am a strong advocate of the death penalty because in my eyes it is the only just action to take in many situations. The consequences he has to face should never be chosen because they seem to be the most beneficial for society, they should be chosen because they're the most fair. His death would be the ultimate justice for the girl. You want to clean up society so more maniacs like him aren't created then there are plenty of things that can be done that do not have to come at the expense of that girl's justice.

Nothing comes at the expense of her justice. He will come out after he has served his minimum time in prison. I'm not saying he should get less, I'm saying he should only be released if he is no danger to anyone else. He'll be out within 10 years regardless. His age has nothing to do with it, as I pointed out. But I'm interested in hearing what else could be done...

As for the death penalty, what happens if a similar case comes out and the man is killed. 10 years down the line, one of his mates confesses to killing her. Then what? You've put an innocent man to his death. Who are you to judge whether anyone deserves to live or die?

As for the 'most fair'. I'M ONLY TALKING ABOUT RELEASING THEM WHEN THEIR MINIMUM SENTENCE IS OVER. We release criminals and most of them come back into prison? Why, because we treat it as revenge instead of trying to make them better people.

Dan wrote:

BladeGunner wrote:The argument that he's a kid is wrong. He can legally do anything a full grown man can at the age of 18 so he is very much an adult in the legal sense. If they prove that he isn't insane then he simply deserves to die. I am a strong advocate of the death penalty because in my eyes it is the only just action to take in many situations. The consequences he has to face should never be chosen because they seem to be the most beneficial for society, they should be chosen because they're the most fair. His death would be the ultimate justice for the girl. You want to clean up society so more maniacs like him aren't created then there are plenty of things that can be done that do not have to come at the expense of that girl's justice.

Nothing comes at the expense of her justice. He will come out after he has served his minimum time in prison. I'm not saying he should get less, I'm saying he should only be released if he is no danger to anyone else. He'll be out within 10 years regardless. His age has nothing to do with it, as I pointed out. But I'm interested in hearing what else could be done...

As for the death penalty, what happens if a similar case comes out and the man is killed. 10 years down the line, one of his mates confesses to killing her. Then what? You've put an innocent man to his death. Who are you to judge whether anyone deserves to live or die?

As for the 'most fair'. I'M ONLY TALKING ABOUT RELEASING THEM WHEN THEIR MINIMUM SENTENCE IS OVER. We release criminals and most of them come back into prison? Why, because we treat it as revenge instead of trying to make them better people.

Tell that to the guy who stabbed a 15-year-old 60 times.

Pico wrote:

Dan wrote:

Nothing comes at the expense of her justice. He will come out after he has served his minimum time in prison. I'm not saying he should get less, I'm saying he should only be released if he is no danger to anyone else. He'll be out within 10 years regardless. His age has nothing to do with it, as I pointed out. But I'm interested in hearing what else could be done...

As for the death penalty, what happens if a similar case comes out and the man is killed. 10 years down the line, one of his mates confesses to killing her. Then what? You've put an innocent man to his death. Who are you to judge whether anyone deserves to live or die?

As for the 'most fair'. I'M ONLY TALKING ABOUT RELEASING THEM WHEN THEIR MINIMUM SENTENCE IS OVER. We release criminals and most of them come back into prison? Why, because we treat it as revenge instead of trying to make them better people.

Tell that to the guy who stabbed a 15-year-old 60 times.

He is serving his punishment for it. Or have you not read the article?

Dan wrote:

Pico wrote:

Tell that to the guy who stabbed a 15-year-old 60 times.

He is serving his punishment for it. Or have you not read the article?

But you're saying he shouldn't get this punishment.

Because he's 18. And you hug trees.

I've said he shouldn't spend the rest of his life in prison if he reforms his character/is no danger to society.

"Judge Richard Foster gave Hall a life sentence with a minimum term of 10 years at Luton Crown Court today."

I seeem to be in agreement with the Judge here.

Dan wrote:I've said he shouldn't spend the rest of his life in prison if he reforms his character/is no danger to society.

"Judge Richard Foster gave Hall a life sentence with a minimum term of 10 years at Luton Crown Court today."

I seeem to be in agreement with the Judge here.

You seeeeeeeeeeem to be very naive.

Not surprising, Liverpool fan and all.

Dan wrote:

BladeGunner wrote:The argument that he's a kid is wrong. He can legally do anything a full grown man can at the age of 18 so he is very much an adult in the legal sense. If they prove that he isn't insane then he simply deserves to die. I am a strong advocate of the death penalty because in my eyes it is the only just action to take in many situations. The consequences he has to face should never be chosen because they seem to be the most beneficial for society, they should be chosen because they're the most fair. His death would be the ultimate justice for the girl. You want to clean up society so more maniacs like him aren't created then there are plenty of things that can be done that do not have to come at the expense of that girl's justice.

Nothing comes at the expense of her justice. He will come out after he has served his minimum time in prison. I'm not saying he should get less, I'm saying he should only be released if he is no danger to anyone else. He'll be out within 10 years regardless. His age has nothing to do with it, as I pointed out. But I'm interested in hearing what else could be done...

As for the death penalty, what happens if a similar case comes out and the man is killed. 10 years down the line, one of his mates confesses to killing her. Then what? You've put an innocent man to his death. Who are you to judge whether anyone deserves to live or die?

As for the 'most fair'. I'M ONLY TALKING ABOUT RELEASING THEM WHEN THEIR MINIMUM SENTENCE IS OVER. We release criminals and most of them come back into prison? Why, because we treat it as revenge instead of trying to make them better people.

I thought I made it clear that I wasn't in favour of imprisoning him in the first place. But in any case, releasing him after 10 years because we're sure that he's no longer a menace to us does come at the expense of the girl's justice. It's not revenge to want him to spend the rest of his days in prison, it's what he deserves. And he can't be a danger to society while he's stuck in a jail cell anyway so I don't see what's the problem. Even then, though, I think it's somewhat inhumane to have someone spend the rest of his life in terrible living conditions. Which is why I think the death penalty is more fair.

And imprisoning an innocent man for however many years is dandy, right? You'd only convict someone in a situation like this if you were certain to a large extent of his guilt. If no clear verdict can be reached then sure, he deserves the benefit of the doubt. After all, someone's life is not something to be toyed with. However, if he is found to be unanimously guilty by a jury then it's over. He ended someone's life then his life is ended. That girl won't get another chance at life then neither should he.

But I never said I disagreed with you because you think he should be released before his minimum sentence. My point of disagreement comes from the fact that I think that the minimum sentence is not enough as I addressed earlier.

Yep, if you want to think that, it's fine. I've got my opinions, it seems you can't get your head around them..

BladeGunner wrote:

Dan wrote:

Nothing comes at the expense of her justice. He will come out after he has served his minimum time in prison. I'm not saying he should get less, I'm saying he should only be released if he is no danger to anyone else. He'll be out within 10 years regardless. His age has nothing to do with it, as I pointed out. But I'm interested in hearing what else could be done...

As for the death penalty, what happens if a similar case comes out and the man is killed. 10 years down the line, one of his mates confesses to killing her. Then what? You've put an innocent man to his death. Who are you to judge whether anyone deserves to live or die?

As for the 'most fair'. I'M ONLY TALKING ABOUT RELEASING THEM WHEN THEIR MINIMUM SENTENCE IS OVER. We release criminals and most of them come back into prison? Why, because we treat it as revenge instead of trying to make them better people.

I thought I made it clear that I wasn't in favour of imprisoning him in the first place. But in any case, releasing him after 10 years because we're sure that he's no longer a menace to us does come at the expense of the girl's justice. It's not revenge to want him to spend the rest of his days in prison, it's what he deserves. And he can't be a danger to society while he's stuck in a jail cell anyway so I don't see what's the problem. Even then, though, I think it's somewhat inhumane to have someone spend the rest of his life in terrible living conditions. Which is why I think the death penalty is more fair.

And imprisoning an innocent man for however many years is dandy, right? You'd only convict someone in a situation like this if you were certain to a large extent of his guilt. If no clear verdict can be reached then sure, he deserves the benefit of the doubt. After all, someone's life is not something to be toyed with. However, if he is found to be unanimously guilty by a jury then it's over. He ended someone's life then his life is ended. That girl won't get another chance at life then neither should he.

But I never said I disagreed with you because you think he should be released before his minimum sentence. My point of disagreement comes from the fact that I think that the minimum sentence is not enough as I addressed earlier.

No, it's not. But releasing him back into the world and compensating him is a small measure compared to raising the dead.

And 'f he is found to be unanimously guilty by a jury then it's over'. What makes them right? Were they there? Just because they gave their verdict, it doesn't mean it is 100% correct.

Why would releasing him as a positive member of society impact on her justice? I'm in favour of keeping any murderer/rapist etc. locked up, until they prove that they are no longer a threat to society. You are right, they aren't a threat to society while in prison, but if they truly have changed, why keep them there. It's a complete waste of money.

Say for instance a man walks in on his wife with his best friend, they have a fight and the best friend whacks his head and ends up dead. Should the man be jailed for life for a single moment that was completely out of character?

Fair enough about the length of his sentence, can agree with that point.

BladeGunner wrote:

Dan wrote:

Nothing comes at the expense of her justice. He will come out after he has served his minimum time in prison. I'm not saying he should get less, I'm saying he should only be released if he is no danger to anyone else. He'll be out within 10 years regardless. His age has nothing to do with it, as I pointed out. But I'm interested in hearing what else could be done...

As for the death penalty, what happens if a similar case comes out and the man is killed. 10 years down the line, one of his mates confesses to killing her. Then what? You've put an innocent man to his death. Who are you to judge whether anyone deserves to live or die?

As for the 'most fair'. I'M ONLY TALKING ABOUT RELEASING THEM WHEN THEIR MINIMUM SENTENCE IS OVER. We release criminals and most of them come back into prison? Why, because we treat it as revenge instead of trying to make them better people.

I thought I made it clear that I wasn't in favour of imprisoning him in the first place. But in any case, releasing him after 10 years because we're sure that he's no longer a menace to us does come at the expense of the girl's justice. It's not revenge to want him to spend the rest of his days in prison, it's what he deserves. And he can't be a danger to society while he's stuck in a jail cell anyway so I don't see what's the problem. Even then, though, I think it's somewhat inhumane to have someone spend the rest of his life in terrible living conditions. Which is why I think the death penalty is more fair.

And imprisoning an innocent man for however many years is dandy, right? You'd only convict someone in a situation like this if you were certain to a large extent of his guilt. If no clear verdict can be reached then sure, he deserves the benefit of the doubt. After all, someone's life is not something to be toyed with. However, if he is found to be unanimously guilty by a jury then it's over. He ended someone's life then his life is ended. That girl won't get another chance at life then neither should he.

But I never said I disagreed with you because you think he should be released before his minimum sentence. My point of disagreement comes from the fact that I think that the minimum sentence is not enough as I addressed earlier.

Not to mention he pleaded guilty. Off with his ginger head.

1+2) A jury is representative of the people and we should trust them to do what's right. If there's even as much as a shred of a doubt in their minds then they should feel obligated to not give a unanimous decision.

3) Because he is essentially getting a second chance which he should not be entitled to. And if you're in favour of them spending the rest of their lives in there but you're only concerned about the money then shouldn't a death sentence make sense to you? I go back to my earlier point that death is a more humane way of dealing with murderers then locking them up for their entire lives. That sounds to me more like revenge than the death penalty does.

4) I'll agree with you there. What I said earlier was more relevant to situations like the one in the article in the original post. Murder isn't exactly black and white and I believe that every specific instance should be examined depending on the circumstances that accompany it.

BladeGunner wrote:1+2) A jury is representative of the people and we should trust them to do what's right. If there's even as much as a shred of a doubt in their minds then they should feel obligated to not give a unanimous decision.

3) Because he is essentially getting a second chance which he should not be entitled to. And if you're in favour of them spending the rest of their lives in there but you're only concerned about the money then shouldn't a death sentence make sense to you? I go back to my earlier point that death is a more humane way of dealing with murderers then locking them up for their entire lives. That sounds to me more like revenge than the death penalty does.

4) I'll agree with you there. What I said earlier was more relevant to situations like the one in the article in the original post. Murder isn't exactly black and white and I believe that every specific instance should be examined depending on the circumstances that accompany it.

1) It's true. But it doesn't make their verdict the correct one. There's been many cases that have seen people acquitted because of new evidence that has surfaced years down the line that has proven it wasn't them when it seemed certain it was. I'd rather have that guy locked up in a cell than buried in a cemetery.

3) It's not the only reason, it's just the one you hear people complain about the most. 'The cost of keeping an inmate' and such. My personal belief is that a true justice system should look to reform characters. Many people that are sent down have been brought up in an environment where everything around them is a bad influence. Where they are encouraged to steal, attack people from an early age. With them, it's often not a case of giving them a second chance, they've never even had a chance in the first place. I firmly think that people should be given second chances, but only if they are willing to truly live up to expectations. If not, they deserve no help.

Just nuke Liverpool, that'll put an end to all of this.

Dan wrote:

George wrote:

Yes, he does deserve to be jailed for life. After all, he isn't the victim.

What's the point of locking him up then? Might as well bring back capital punishment and save a load of taxpayer money.

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?

Agreed with Dan.

Termination of his contract from Stoke, knowing he probably won't get another chance at Football would probably be bad, instead he's going to come out around the time he's 40 and probably kill himself due to so much changing and the fact he regretted 10 minutes into his sentence, also going to cost a shit load for the tax payer.

crump wrote:

Dan wrote:

George wrote:

Yes, he does deserve to be jailed for life. After all, he isn't the victim.

What's the point of locking him up then? Might as well bring back capital punishment and save a load of taxpayer money.

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?

Agreed with Dan.

Termination of his contract from Stoke, knowing he probably won't get another chance at Football would probably be bad, instead he's going to come out around the time he's 40 and probably kill himself due to so much changing and the fact he regretted 10 minutes into his sentence, also going to cost a shit load for the tax payer.

A life sentence is 25 years. Really he could be out by the age of 33 if he's well behaved in prison. The fact that he gets to live a life is injustice to the girl and her family. He deserves to die.

Luisuarez7 wrote:

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

Have you ever considered that fiends like this individual are simply victims of their own circumstances?

If you think about it this man murdered that girl because of a series of unfortunate events that began with his conception. It is not his fault that he, as a result of his genetics an conditioning he was pre disposed to be capable of murder, after all.

You're contradicting yourself here, saying he's predisposed due to nurture of his surroundings then saying it's his genetics...

Dan wrote:

BladeGunner wrote:The argument that he's a kid is wrong. He can legally do anything a full grown man can at the age of 18 so he is very much an adult in the legal sense. If they prove that he isn't insane then he simply deserves to die. I am a strong advocate of the death penalty because in my eyes it is the only just action to take in many situations. The consequences he has to face should never be chosen because they seem to be the most beneficial for society, they should be chosen because they're the most fair. His death would be the ultimate justice for the girl. You want to clean up society so more maniacs like him aren't created then there are plenty of things that can be done that do not have to come at the expense of that girl's justice.

Nothing comes at the expense of her justice. He will come out after he has served his minimum time in prison. I'm not saying he should get less, I'm saying he should only be released if he is no danger to anyone else. He'll be out within 10 years regardless. His age has nothing to do with it, as I pointed out. But I'm interested in hearing what else could be done...

As for the death penalty, what happens if a similar case comes out and the man is killed. 10 years down the line, one of his mates confesses to killing her. Then what? You've put an innocent man to his death. Who are you to judge whether anyone deserves to live or die?

As for the 'most fair'. I'M ONLY TALKING ABOUT RELEASING THEM WHEN THEIR MINIMUM SENTENCE IS OVER. We release criminals and most of them come back into prison? Why, because we treat it as revenge instead of trying to make them better people.

Well if that's what you're arguing it's a wank argument considering this isn't Minority Report, he could be declared sane, released after his sentence and then just commits more crimes. After all it's fair to say he's more prone than the general public due to the history and dim view society has over him

Fonseca wrote:

Dan wrote:

Nothing comes at the expense of her justice. He will come out after he has served his minimum time in prison. I'm not saying he should get less, I'm saying he should only be released if he is no danger to anyone else. He'll be out within 10 years regardless. His age has nothing to do with it, as I pointed out. But I'm interested in hearing what else could be done...

As for the death penalty, what happens if a similar case comes out and the man is killed. 10 years down the line, one of his mates confesses to killing her. Then what? You've put an innocent man to his death. Who are you to judge whether anyone deserves to live or die?

As for the 'most fair'. I'M ONLY TALKING ABOUT RELEASING THEM WHEN THEIR MINIMUM SENTENCE IS OVER. We release criminals and most of them come back into prison? Why, because we treat it as revenge instead of trying to make them better people.

Well if that's what you're arguing it's a wank argument considering this isn't Minority Report, he could be declared sane, released after his sentence and then just commits more crimes. After all it's fair to say he's more prone than the general public due to the history and dim view society has over him

It's not a simple thing he could blag his way through, it's an thorough look at his whole time in prison, how he reacts, whether he makes changes, goes through therapy, group sessions that are available, whether he shows remorse and deep regret for what he has done. It's not about him being 'sane' or not. He's sane now.

A sane person doesn't stab a girl 60 times, I don't need a degree is psychology to know that

He is not insane. If you think he is, understand that Anders Breivik was declared sane.

For a murderer to actually be insane, they would to have committed the crime without knowing right or wrong, or the harm their actions would have caused. The kid was perfectly sane and he is rightly jailed for it.