If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Because even scumbags have rights :rolleyes:
Shame...
Why is it a shame?
Or would you hold a vote after every action a person commits to, to find out if society will allow them to keep their rights after that?
The whole point of human rights is that EVERYBODY has them, regardless of what they do.
The point of a countrys legal system is that everybody has to obey it.
If you start making exceptions the system is open to abuse, and if the system is open to abuse then people are going to suffer.
example :
*thought process of a prison gaurd.
Beating up "nonces" is ok in prison, because they deserve it.
And rapists aswell, becauses its essentaily the same thing.
Murderers also ruin lives beyond the scope of a few years in prison, so they should get the "additional punishment" aswell.
This guy killed some-one while drink driving, and that is murder, so he's in the beatings club aswell.
Actualy anyone that drink drives is running the risk of murder, so all drink drives should be in.
I've heard the radio adverts, speeding can be just as dangerous as drink-driving, so put them over here also.
And that guy looked at me funny, and so many people are getting beat-up one more isn't going to make a difference.
/example
Get my point?.
I know, i said i was giving up.
I know, i'm back.
Sue me
This principle goes back to both Cicero, who wrote that;
The welfare of the people is the highest law
and St. Augustine, who wrote that;
An unjust law is no law
While no one would argue that the laws in this case are unjust, perhaps they do not have the highest interests of society at heart. We can argue about the responsibility of the judiciary system to provide a measure of revenge, or to impose the culturally adjusted "justice" on the defendant at length, but I believe that we will not come to a satisfactory answer.
In this particular case, I think that the heinous nature of the crime has touched a nerve with many people, and brought out some more base instincts within our supposedly civilised paradigm. Instincts for revenge, for "true" justice are all part of human nature, and while they are understandable, they cannot be condoned per se. We cannot debase ourselves and bring society to the level of this man. For if we do, then what are we? We are no better than him. Vigilante justice is worse than no justice at all, for it is subject to extreme bias and subjectivity. The laws of the land exist to be applied to all, and to protect all.
On the other hand, as I have previously argued, one who chooses to step outside the law once might well be villified for trying to complain when the law does not protect him. It's like living within a fort, which is well armed and defended. It is surrounded by hostile forces. Should you step outside the fort, which is your decision, then you cannot complain when those hostile forces act as they wish. I know that analogy is somewhat loose, but it serves it's purpose enough.
Were this man to be stabbed to death, I can imagine that few tears would be shed for him as an individual. But would anyone shed tears for the destruction of law?
Remember it is not him complaining that the law is not protecting him. If he did he would not get a good response.
Its ME complaining that the law does not protect people in prison, and ME thats disgusted that the majority of people think that this is ok.
If we had the option of "throwing him out of the fort" then all is well, but seeing as he is about as welcome in the outside world as he is in our own this is not an option, so we keep him in the fort and punish him ourselves, under the laws and rules of the fort.
Some-one thinks that the rules of the fort are not good enough and decides to implement their own justice.
Isn't that a fair summation of event, under the metephore you started?
And to point to your quotes :
As he is still a member of society, our fort, he is still a person, so his welfare must be considerd.
The law he is currently being punished under has been created and evolved over hundreds of years to be fair. I would call this just.
The person who decided to implement their own form of justice i would say is working under an unjust law, making it no law at all.
I'm not sure if you are with me or not on this... I guessed from you're first post you thought it was good and fair , what had happened to him. now i'm not sure.
Not bothered whether this is justice or not he abused and killed a child and as far as I'm concerned he gave up the right to be classed as a human being.
DD
We have laws for a reason.Doesnt necessarily mean I sympathise at all with Whiting. I understand those who feel what he got wasnt good enough for him but thats the law.That he should be locked up.
Imprisonment was his punnishment, handed down in Law.Not a vigilante beating whoever handed it down to him.
I do agree that all prisoners whatever the crime should be protected however I do think its worth pointing out that the prison service does admit it cannot keep sensitive prisoners such as Whiting safe all the time if they do wish to be housed with other prisoners.
They do have the option of being held away from other prisoners however this means that they are mainly in solitary confinement.
Given this I think Whiting has to share some of the responsibility for his injuries.He knows he is likely to be one of the UK's most hated prisoners. Righly or wrongly prisoners in the general prison community are not safeguarded.he therefore cannot say he wasnt aware of the risk he was taking when he did have the choice to be segregated.