A vote...
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/7696709.stm

Who votes that they should never leave prison, or at least serve their minimum sentences, without fucking whinging about it?

God, I could not think any lower of this scum, I wouldn't piss on them if they were burning.

EDIT: "Lawyers for the gang have argued their sentences were too long taking into account their ages" - With any luck, if that's the basis of their appeal, the judge will tell them to fuck right off. They were old enough to kill, that's old enough to be treated like a murderer.
( Agnostic Antichrist Baltimora, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 8:58, 45 replies, latest was 16 years ago)

*Puts up hand*
I agree. They should have got life.
( girlinthehole, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 9:04, Reply)

I am in total agreement...

How can 16 and 18 years be too long for murdering someone, they will be out in their 30s and still have their whole life ahead of them.

The little bastards should have been jailed for life and have the shit kicked out of them on a daily basis.
( Stu71 ....bad money dies, I love the scene, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 9:06, Reply)

there should be absolutely no mercy shown for fuckers like those
they should be made to suffer

at the very least they should be in prison knowing that they are never, ever, going to be able to get out again.

and they should be arse-raped every day
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 9:14, Reply)

I disagree
They should have their sentences reduced to the next three days and then home.





That's right! Hang them the day after tomorrow. No loss to society and their organs could be used elsewhere. Scumbags.
(Captain Placid 24/7 ball gags, brownie mix and clown porn, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 9:26, Reply)

I think
the sentences were proportional. I won't in any way defend them as individuals, but our justice system, while occasionally wrong, hands out punishments which are generally proportional to the crime.

I agree that their sentences shouldn't be reduced. But they've done the crime, will do the time (however long it is) and should be given the opportunity for reintegration into society when their punishment is over.

*expects flaming*
( Noeli overtheshoulderboulderholderthingstraplatchboobs, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 9:40, Reply)

Reintegration IS the key!
As donor carcases. Can't really see any other use they could be to society.
They got drunk, decided to attack a guy because he looked different and then kicked his girlfriend to death while she was cradling him.


Useless wastes of DNA unless they are used as organ banks.
(Captain Placid 24/7 ball gags, brownie mix and clown porn, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 9:46, Reply)

Er...
Well, I thought it was just me who thought the news story was fucking ridiculous.

Sorry, but 16 years for kicking someone to death because of the way they look is in no way proportionate to the crime. As someone up there said, they will be out in their 30's (and probably a bit earlier), with their whole lives ahead of them, something they denied to that girl they killed. I do not support the death sentence, but these fuckers should be left to rot.

M'lud.
( Devil_In_Tights the *real* DiT!, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 9:48, Reply)

A lefty speaks...
1) Bear in mind that life does mean life. You never end a life sentence, and your release can be terminated at any point should the courts see fit. It's not like they'll ever be free from the threat of going straight back to prison.

2) If you're in your mid-teens, a 16-year sentence IS life. It's the whole length of your life so far.

3) While there's something attractive about keeping people in prison for the rest of their natural lives, there's also something petty, vengeful and downright ignoble about clamouring for more and more punishment just for its own sake.

4) By contrast, isn't there something admirable about an attitude that says that, if an offender pays his due, we're willing to forget the offence? And that, in the light of (3), we might be willing to let the past be even if that due hasn't been paid? (This isn't the same as saying that we should open the doors of the prisons - it's just a suggestion that, if we were as admirable as we like to think we are, that might be the attitude we'd take...)

*prepares for flaming*
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 9:59, Reply)

I can't believe they had the nerve to appeal.
I don't know the ins and outs and moral wranglings of the legal system, but I would have thought they were old enough to know what they were doing, and would have argued that 16 and 18 years was maybe a little lenient for something so malicious.

Edit: Actually, having read Enzyme's sage view, I think he may have a good point - I certainly become quite morally outraged when I read about this case, and when the red mist clears then it makes sense to be a bit more calm and rational about it. I think I'd still insist on a fairly lengthy prison sentence, but we'll see how that changes as my blood pressure falls...
(LongJohnBaldry, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 10:02, Reply)

One other thing...
Why shouldn't they try to minimise their sentences? Isn't that just a matter of playing the game?
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 10:10, Reply)

I'm with Enzyme here
I too feel the pull of the 'burn the fuckers' emotion but realistically we've tried that in the past and moved on. I reiterate that I agree what they did was a terrible thing, but does it make it any different from any other murder or horrific violent crime, in that they should burn for killing someone for the way they dressed?

I came to the conclusion a long time ago to trust the justice system to do its job. Yes, it makes mistakes, but every system does. Part of our human evolution is learning from mistakes, and we should give every criminal the same right to pay for it, learn from it and move on.

I know this is an emotive subject and I'm leaving myself open to criticism. Feel free.
( Noeli overtheshoulderboulderholderthingstraplatchboobs, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 10:14, Reply)

True...
Obviously it's in their best interests to get out of there as soon as they can. I think I'm just a little dumbstruck that their lawyers have managed to put together an appeal case, but, having said that, I only know the story from the angle given in the news reports - even if the BBC is trying to be impartial, the convicted still come across looking as guilty as a paedophile caught sitting in the wheelie bin outside a primary school.

EDIT: I agree with No3L as well - our legal system might not be perfect, but it's the best thing we've got, and is a damn site more reliable than any angry vigilante mob. I know I should certainly take a deep breath and calm down before I reach any judgement on things like this.
(LongJohnBaldry, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 10:15, Reply)

Slightly Leftie
The blazing pitchforks reaction to heinous crimes such as these are by far and away a poor example of how vengeful and petty our society has become. Personally, with tongue FIRMLY implanted in cheek, I blame the Daily Mail.

Their sentence of life imprisonment is just that - life. If they are released then the nature of their release will be on license; as enzyme rightly points out, they can be recalled to prison at any time.
(Eds Meds Mathskillz=1,Socialskillz=0, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 10:18, Reply)

@Crow
I'm just a little dumbstruck that their lawyers have managed to put together an appeal case

Bear in mind that the job of a lawyer is to represent his client. Guilt is not a relavent consideration; nor is truth. They're for the judges and the jury to consider. The lawyer's job is to demolish the opposition's argument - and, if the case is unwinnable, then to make sure that the client gets the least-bad outcome possible.

I suspect that people tend to forget that about lawyers. And, yes, I am currently putting in an application to train as a barrister...
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 10:23, Reply)

There are lots of reasons why people kill other people.
Doesn't automatically mean they should get life in prison if someone takes a life. In this instance it does. They had no other purpose than to kick the living shit out of a harmless couple just to have some fun. I'm sorry but I don't want them anywhere near another innocent human being for the rest of their sorry lives.

If that makes me a right-wing, pitch-fork bearing sonofabitch then so be it.
( girlinthehole, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 10:29, Reply)

A no-lose situation.
The lawyers appealing on behalf of these subhumans are in a no lose situation, as are the two violent drunken murderers themselves. If the appeal goes against them, the lawyers still get paid and the DNA wastes are no worse off. The system should be that, if you appeal and you've pleaded guilty before, you should run the risk that your sentence could be INCREASED.

I respect Enzyme's views (and he has a brain the size of a planet) but, as a pragmatist I am wondering what we as a society will get back from these two after we've fed, clothed, housed and educated them FOC for nearly two decades? Brilliant surgeons? Researchers into deadly diseases? Musicians?

Nope, we'll get two ex-cons with no idea how society should work, burdens on us all until they get killed themselves or die of natural causes.

Waste of time and money
(Captain Placid 24/7 ball gags, brownie mix and clown porn, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 10:29, Reply)

@Enzyme
Yes, you're quite right - I suppose their guilt has already been established, so the issue for the lawyer is now in persuading the judge to adjust the sentence. (As I tried to suggest in one of my earlier replies: I know virtually nothing about the legal system.)
(LongJohnBaldry, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 10:29, Reply)

@CP
Nope, we'll get two ex-cons with no idea how society should work, burdens on us all until they get killed themselves or die of natural causes.

You're right on that. And I think that it's damning of the prison system that that's the case. It has to be said, I think, that one of the reasons why prison doesn't work is because of the electoral popularity of the half-baked, quarter-informed hang-'em-and-flog-'em attitude to offenders.

Advancing a model for a prison system in which the central idea is that most offenders are no different from you and me save for bad luck and a catastrophic mistake or two would be electoral suicide.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 10:39, Reply)

@Enzyme
But surely we have to cling to the idea that prison is a place for reform as much as it is for punishment, and hope that every so often, one convict will realise it's time he turned his life around, and becomes a decent citizen after eventual release? (Even if this is a very rose-tinted view of what actually happens.)

Let's face it, some people have to sink pretty low before they decide to do something with their lives, and if for some people that amounts to being locked behind bars and spending their morning shower avoiding bumrape then I suppose that's what the prisons are there for.
(LongJohnBaldry, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 10:52, Reply)

Hmmm
When I am sitting on my sofa eating Pringles, watching The Lion King on my big plasma and patting my dog, yeah, I'll swing left and be all for rehabilitation and forgiveness, and anti the death penalty etc. But when someone kicks my 20 year old sister to death because she dresses funny I reserve the right to change my mind.
( enoughblueskyforsailorstrousers, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 10:57, Reply)

Some good points on both sides of the argument
leaving aside the facts of this particular case however, I'm strongly of the view that sentances for a crime should be a deterrent first, and a punishment and/or a chance of rehabilitation* second

(*not the word I'm looking for, but close enough. the one I want eludes me for the moment)

whether deterrents would ever work, even with the death penalty reinstated is a matter for some debate....
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 10:58, Reply)

@Crow
Yes to the first bit, no to the second. I'm mystified as to how one'd inculcate desirable characteristics into a person by depriving him of them.

The idea that people have to be brought low is ridiculous - most offenders are already low; and, assuming that you and I have both turned out to be pretty decent sorts without being brought low first, quite why such treatment should be necessary in others' cases remains something of a mystery.

In short, if you want people to flourish, you need to give them the compost.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 10:59, Reply)

@Vipros
I don't think that the death penalty is a deterrant, for the same reason that prison usually isn't: to wit, that's simply not how you're thinking in the heat of the moment. Think of all the times you've broken the speed limit, shoplifted or whatever. You aren't calculating the odds of getting caught, the benefits to you of the action, and the malefits of the punishment. You're acting in the moment.

Now - on occasion you might think about these things. But in that case, the death penalty might give you an incentive to commit more crimes. After all, if you are aiming not to get caught - and you would be if you're reasonably sure that capture'd mean death - and if the way not to get caught is to kill the witness as well as the person you've just attacked, then it'd be rational to kill the witness. After all, your penalty would be no worse either way should you get caught - you'd be no deader - but the odds of that happening would've fallen.

Does that make sense? I'm not sure. Apologies if it's garbled.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 11:03, Reply)

it does make sense
aiming to not be caught, or not thinking in the heat of the moment are the biggest arguments against the punishments being a deterrent.

I suppose the biggest thing to be thankful for is that the culprits in the OP were caught and have been taken to trial at all.

I do worry for the justice system after hearing tales from my old man (an ex-prosecutor) about how badly things are run, leaving the prosecutors no time to prepare cases and how inexperienced and unprepared most of the CPS are.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 11:12, Reply)

@Enzyme
I'll happily take a shit on them.

Seriously though, I think the point we agree on is that they do deserve to be there, and they deserve to serve the sentences handed down to them.

Captain Placid makes the point that if/when they do make it out of prison, they will struggle to adjust to life. But I think that relates to No3l's first point - "But they've done the crime, will do the time (however long it is) and should be given the opportunity for reintegration into society when their punishment is over."

While I would happily see them rot in jail, once they have served their time correctly (i.e. no time off for good behaviour) then I would accept (not welcome) them back into society, because they have paid their price.

It hearkens back to the Jamie Bulger killing. If the killers had served their time, I don't think the public outrage on their release would have reached the pitch it did.

I think the prison system should allow them to try to better themselves, be it learning a trade, or just getting a qualification. That way, they're a lot less likely to end up back in jail within 6 months.
( Agnostic Antichrist Baltimora, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 11:19, Reply)

possibly without the overt Christian-ness of it
I think that Angola prison by the Mississippi has the right of it. Allow them to better themselves, and to feel somewhat like people while they are in there, but punish the hell out of them if they step out of line.

they are all in for life with no chance of parole though...
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 11:24, Reply)

@AA
But what do you mean by "serving their time"? The sentence was handed down by the courts, modified by the courts, and is regulated by the courts through agencies that act as their proxies.

Public fury about anything is not a consideration, as far as I'm concerned. I simply couldn't care less what the general public thinks - if, indeed, the general public ever thinks at all.

EDIT: Also, to say that prisoners ought to try to get an education or qualifications while inside is all very well - but it's often not possible, especially for those on short sentences. Ease conditions to make it possible, and, once again, we're in electoral suicide mode.

EDIT (2): And I don't think we agree that they deserve to be there. I think that desert is a tricky concept, and I'm not sure it's applicable. (For example, one might say that a violent teenager would not have been violent but for the bad luck of his social circumstances. But if those circumstances, about which he can do nothing, are so important, it means you have to reassess what "desert" means - it looks like he could not reasonably be expected to do otherwise.) Either way, it's not something that concerns me a great deal.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 11:28, Reply)

@Enzyme
Tis a good point, I suppose 'serving their time' seems a bit of an odd phrase when you actually think about it.

I think it's due to the fact that we hear of the family of the victim being pleased with the sentence handed down to the accused, because it means that – in their eyes – the accused will be adequately punished. When they have that punishment shortened, that can cause all kinds of hell for the victim's family. I think that’s why people get annoyed when we hear of a drink driver who killed a family, was sentenced to 4 years, and is out in 2, because they haven’t served their punishment adequately.

I was not referring to public fury as a change for anything, it was simply a reference point for what could happen in the future when these criminals are free to walk the streets again. If they serve their full sentence, they should be allowed to get on with their lives. If they don’t, many people won’t let them get on with their lives.

I agree with how it’s not possible on the education front, which is why I think a rewards scheme should be in place, but only a very basic one, like a child, i.e. do your homework, and you can watch TV.

Modify it, start making an effort in lessons/workshops/however the bloody hell they learn, start to offer them extra privileges, be it an extra hour outside, or longer visiting hours. Don’t give them a PS3/Xbox/etc, they lost their right to treats when they ended up there.

This could come out as utter waffle, hope not.
( Agnostic Antichrist Baltimora, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 11:45, Reply)

@al
I was only referring to the Jamie Bulger case in regards to the public outcry when they left prison, the fact that they only served 8 years.

I understand that they deserved a new life when they left prison, but that should have been done at their own expense, not that of the justice system.
( Agnostic Antichrist Baltimora, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 11:49, Reply)

@AA
You still haven't told us what "adequately" would mean in terms of sentencing, though, nor how you'd begin to assess it. Nor is it clear why the feelings of the family should be of any importance at all - that'd imply that to kill someone to whom noone was close is worse than to kill a popular person. (That's not an impossible line to take, but I think that it's implausible...)

Yes - people do get all jumpy when a sentence is, as they see it, inadequate. That's why - thankfully - they don't get a say in sentencing.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 11:51, Reply)

@Enzyme
I'll be honest, I couldn't lay my finger on an adequate sentence, because I've never been affected by a crime in that way.

The closest I've ever come was a few years ago, when a friend mum was killed by a drink driver, driving dangerously without insurance or a license, and was sentenced for 3 1/2 years. I was satisfied with that sentence, but if I then heard that he'd behaved in prison, and left after 2 years, then I would be angry.

I'm with No3l and Supreme Crow, our justice system may be a bit odd at times, but it's a lot better than it could be.

And I agree with you, while I'd quite enjoy the thought of seeing a person squirm, being faced with the family of their victim, I know that it would be wrong, and would solve nothing.

At the end of the day, it is the lawyers job to present a case, the jury's to decide if a person is innocent or guilty, and the judge's to then decide how to deal with the person. That system should stay.

I hope that's addressing your question...
( Agnostic Antichrist Baltimora, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 12:02, Reply)

@AA
Sort of. There's a line you could take, though, which excludes the victim from sentencing considerations completely.

Take your driver, for example. It's bad that he was drunk and uninsured, but bad luck that someone happened to be crossing the road at the time. It's hard to see how that bad luck makes the crime worse...
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 12:06, Reply)

Right
[rolls up sleeves]

This is hard. What's nature, and what's nurture? Why does one person abused as a child become an abuser themselves, while another person doesn't but grows up to become a model citizen despite their experiences?

Why does one deprived, slum-dweller grow up to be an armed robber, while their neighbour becomes a social worker?

Is it more down to personality? Those that are easily led or natually aggressive go one way, their placid, strong-willed bretheren go the other. If so, is one any more 'guilty' than the other? Would that same easily-led, aggressive person become a rugby star if born into a wealthy middle-class home?

I don't know the answers and I'm not sure anyone really does. The main problem (as I see it) is that human society is now too big and too complex - there are too many cracks to fall down and too many evil influences around like drugs and weaponry. There are multi-cultures within each macro-culture - many of these are conflicting, many mis-understood. Many people try to fit into a new or different culture, or just try to get by in their own micro-culture.

Calling people Chavs or Hoodies or Gangstas might help us to categorise them, but does nothing to explore the behaviours that pass for 'acceptable' within those micro-cultures.

OK, I've run out of steam now. Comments welcome.
(Che Grimsdale Best before:, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 12:09, Reply)

@Enzyme - Probably a bit late to defend my earlier argument
But my point about some people having to sink to certain depths doesn't apply to everybody - obviously for a lot of us this isn't necessary. The people I was referring to are those who started off on the wrong foot, fell in with the wrong crowd, etc., because it seemed like the better option at the time. Some of them will eventually reach a point where they've got themselves into such a mess that they (hopefully) realise they'll get nowhere unless they shape up and start trying to achieve something. (It's my own fault; when I first tried to explain this I was typing faster than I was thinking so my supervisor wouldn't catch me on b3ta - I hope the second attempt better conveys my point)
(LongJohnBaldry, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 12:13, Reply)

@Enzyme
In terms of whether the victim should be considered in sentencing -
The victim's feelings, no.

The victim's condition, yes.

Still - news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/7696709.stm - Good.
( Agnostic Antichrist Baltimora, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 12:14, Reply)

@AA
No to both, I'm afraid - lest it be sentencing by the least stoic.

@Crow: Still, you need an account of starting off on the wrong foot and so on - what, exactly, counts as the "wrong crowd", for example? And it's still not clear how systematic grinding down would achieve anything. Your average teenage hooligan is a thoughtless fool - the answer, it seems to me, would have to do with diluting that. And I don't see how entering a machismo contest would do that. Have I missed something?
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 12:18, Reply)

@Enzyme
"The wrong foot" and "the wrong crowd" are, I admit, very general definitions, which I don't think I can easily define. I think you may have missed my point when you refer to it as a systematic grinding down - what I meant was that these people steer themselves into their own mess, whether it be a prison sentence for murder, running from a drug dealer, hospitalised following a pissed-up carjacking, or simply finding themselves broke and jobless with a criminal record by the time they turn 21. My point is that I would like to think - else I may have to give hope for humankind - that some of these thoughtless hooligans suddenly realise the hole into which they've dug themselves and begin to think it's time to make an effort to change.

Very idealistic, I admit, and I doubt it happens in most cases.
(LongJohnBaldry, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 12:28, Reply)

@Crow
I'm not sure they do steer themselves into that mess, any more than a nice middle-class boy like me steered himself to university. Rather, it was almost inevitable that things'd pan out as they did given an account of common human psychology, socialisation, and opportunity. A hoodie thug can no more be blamed for doing hoodie thug things than can I credited for doing bourgeois honky things.

Nor is it enough to realise that you're in a hole and start climbing out yourself. Just about everyone is painfully aware of the hole in which they reside, and climbing out under your own steam simply isn't an option.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 12:49, Reply)

This will get me branded as a loon...
In the case of someone like these clowns, there is no reforming them. They've gone down a path from which there really is no return. Their patterns of behavior have been established, and there's no way out of that.

An unrelated but relevant example:

Most people, especially in here, have had childhoods marked by squabbles with siblings. We can all tell tales of how horrid our siblings were, and how our parents didn't do anything about it or reacted wrongly or some such. And yet when we've grown up and moved out on our own, our interactions with our siblings and parents change- the petty shit that drove us insane as kids is behind us, right?

That is, until you all get together at your parents' house for an extended time. Then the old behavior patterns start emerging again, the teasing and such starts anew, and you remember exactly why you hated them in the first place.

It's because the behavior patterns have been established. Your role in regards to your siblings and parents is etched into you, and fight it as you may it will come back. The old family dynamic will return in full force.

Now: take these kids, put them back in society after they've been well educated in how things should really work as opposed to the dysfunctional way they've lived to this point. Maybe for a while they'll be okay- but once they meet up with their old friends and their families, how long will it be before they go right back to their old ways?

Not all of them do this, of course- but it's the way to bet.

Death by exsanguination. Donate the blood to the hospitals, harvest the organs, then cremate the rest. That's the best way for them to repay their debt.
( The Resident Loon Not a demographic. Do not measure., Wed 29 Oct 2008, 13:06, Reply)

from brunch in sunny miami...
Waiting for my friends to hurry the hell up, had to add my halfpennorth! These people knew they were breaking the law. They had no thought or feeling for their victims, society or the law. They made a conscious decision to behave like savages. Why should the taxpayer fork out thousands of pounds a month for their protection and accommodation? They're not worth it.I would only have the death penalty in extreme repeat or sadistic cases, but scum like this should be made to pay their debts. Make them work until they drop daily, sez I! They knew the crime, now they have to do the time. Properly and without the benefits of everything they deprived their victims of by their own informed choice. Scum.
( rachelswipe with a fork, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 13:41, Reply)

^^
And that's coming from a lawyer :D
( Agnostic Antichrist Baltimora, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 13:48, Reply)

Just heard.........
One of them has had his appeal rejected, the other got a nine-month reduction in sentence.

Taking some of the nature vs nurture and rehabilitation ideas forward, I agree that we should be truly trying to rehabilitate people in prison and we should take into account their upbringing, background etc whilst judging them, up to a point. What about the upbringing and background of a religious extremist terrorist? Do we base our judgment of any of his wrongdoings on HIS world view? What about a racist murder? Should we have based the trials of KKK members on their world view? How about Nazi camp guards? There are times, I believe, when it is clear that things people do ARE wrong with no grey areas.

What we cannot get away from is that in this case, they took a life for fun, not in self defence, not in the "gravest extreme", for FUN.

Can there be rehabilitation in a case like this?
(Captain Placid 24/7 ball gags, brownie mix and clown porn, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 14:34, Reply)

@CP
I think you've hit on a genuine problem.

It seems to me incomprehensible but that a person would act except in a way he thinks right, good, or justified. He may do something that he thinks wrong in itself, but treat it as a moral mortgage - ie, a price worth paying for some greater good. But the point is that that seems to imply that all agents are aiming for the good - it's just that some (we think) have misidentified it. To deny this would mean admitting that some people act because of - not just despite - their knowledge that they have a reason not to; and that's incomprehensible.

So it looks like we'd have to admit that the Nazi guard - actually, the guard's not the best person to use here: let's say Himmler instead - that Himmler was aiming at a mistaken account of the good. The problem with that is obvious: how could anyone make a mistake that large? That's incomprehensible too.

The point - and I don't like this - is that there are certain extremes of behaviour that exhaust moral laguage. They're simply baffling. I'm not happy at all with this conclusion, because it seems to absolve much too much. But it's one that strikes me as being very hard to avoid.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 15:34, Reply)

Leaving Aside
The social, societal and other circumstances that made this group capable of such an act for a second (because it is a debate that could go on for ever, and worst of all lead to people being accused of being closet Daily Mail readers), I don't think they were on to a winner with the appeal anyway.

1. It is reported (always dubious, but we'll accept the BBC of being fairly non-biased as the subject matter does not cover politics, ballet or gardening) that they expressd no remorse. Nada. Not a sausage. I'd be willing to bet there would have been a lot of 'good boys, never been in serious trouble before, 'snot their fault really' from their nearest and dearest, as there usually is. However, no remorse.

2. You cannot, I repeat cannot, stamp repeatedly on someone's head without the 100% intention of causing them death or serious injury. Not possible, no matter how pissed you are. This is not a drunken fight where someone got punched, fell over, and cracked their head open on a kerb. This was a group who kicked and stamped a young bloke into a coma, and then did the same to his girlfriend, who from the photos wasn't exactly built like a Bulgarian weightlifter. If it had been a fight where someone died by accident, it would be manslaughter. In this case, there appears to have been the desire to kill or cause severe injury to two victims.

3. The appeal was launched almost before they had been sent down (an exaggeration I know). As there was no appeal over the verdict, the comments of the judge, evidential matters or any question of their complete and utter guilt, this was purely a case of trying to get the sentence down. As there was no chance that they would be freed or the conviction quashed, why on Earth appeal so quickly, when the barbarity of the act was still fresh in the public/press/martian's minds?

In real language "we still did it, we still have no remorse for carrying out a murder that shocked the plod in it's barbarity, but we are only young, so can we get some time off please? Innit."

Who exactly will this have benefited? The token reduction in sentence for scrote No 1 will make bugger all difference in the long term, as odds on they will only serve a proportion of their sentence unless they turn into Charles Bronson while inside. The cynic in me says that the only people who will have profited will be the legal beagles. Oh, and a few more newspapers sold, of course.

The question over the possibilty of rehabilitation for this mob is another one, prpbably for people with bigger brains than me (not difficult). You average ODC may well benefit from education, retraining and a chance to get off whatever drug they are on. Those with mental health issues should be treated in a sympathetic manner, rather than kept in prison-as-a-dumping-ground-for-nutjobs 'treatment'. However, there is perhaps a category of criminal who fully deserves to have his or her stay in the nick to be truly unpleasant. Not saying they are past rehabilitation, but effectively saying that what they did was so heinious that it'll take a lot of time and effort on their part to atone to society for their acts. I believe that it is a principle of the Godsquad that forgiveness too lightly given is worthless, as the person will in themself not believe that they deserve redemption unless they have paid 'their' price.

Oo lots of long words.

On the other hand, the mouthbreathing scum should be nailed to a tree.
(osok Rebel without a clue, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 16:35, Reply)

I think that Enzyme has the right of it in his last post
we, as we are here and now, cannot possibly comprehend someone acting in a that they don't consider to be right, or for some greater good (simplifying a bit here)

looking at this case it is impossible to see how anyone could think that their actions were right or for the greater good, and as captain placid said, for anything other than fun.

I think with some instances, such as this, there comes a point where you have to think either they don't know wrong from right (hard to believe in a group that they all wouldn't), they can't think of the consequences, or they know it is wrong and they do it anyway.

I have a hard time believing that someone of their age can be one of the latter two and ever change, or even form a valuable part of society.


to get to my original intended point: to quote Enzyme
"...some people act because of - not just despite - their knowledge that they have a reason not to; and that's incomprehensible."

I've come to the conclusion that what you are talking about here is the case. it's incomprehnsible, but it is the case nonetheless!
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 17:29, Reply)