Rough Justice?

[IBM]

Arrests Over Oxford Street Stabbing Of Victim Steven Bigby |Sky News|UK News

as long as he was guilty that is.....

[staffsMike]

As you say, assuming he was guilty of it.. can't feel bad about that.

[Rave]

The prolonged closure of Oxford Street (I thought it was New Oxford Street actually?) completely and utterly buggered up at least 4 of our bus routes yesterday, which must have inconvenienced many thousands of people. So yay for street stabbings!.

[staffsMike]

Originally Posted by Rave

The prolonged closure of Oxford Street (I thought it was New Oxford Street actually?) completely and utterly buggered up at least 4 of our bus routes yesterday, which must have inconvenienced many thousands of people. So yay for street stabbings!.

If anyone has seen murder at 1600..

"shoot him, hes ****ing up traffic"

[TheAnimus]

I think this is a damning inditement of tagging.

I mean, who in their right mind, would tag someone suspected of been involved in a gang rape, which as if wasn't enough, featured mutilation.

Yes home secretry, thats the kind of person who shouldn't be in prison, but instead tagged.

Who on earth makes these rules?

[Ben_]

Read this the other day, if its true good riddance. But the stabbers need to be caught they dont get let off for bounty hunting..

[Betty_Swallocks]

No loss to the gene pool whatsoever.

Reports say she was beaten before being assaulted and then having her body covered in skin-burning caustic soda.

Who could do that to a 16 year old girl? In fact, never mind that. Who could do that at all, to anyone? How much hate must you have in your heart to inflict something like that on anyone?

I don't want to start up the whole capital punishment debate again, but if someone is proved to have done something like that I really don't think they deserve to live in any part of our society, not even in prison.

If he was guilty the only problem I have with it is that stabbing is far too quick and easy.

[nichomach]

Two points; firstly, he hadn't been tried or convicted, and absent that, was an innocent man. So I will feel bad about that; yes, lock someone like him up for a hell of a long time if he's found guilty, but in the absence of that I'll file all "good riddance" comments alongside the berks who said Jean Charles de Menezes was "asking for it". Likewise comments about tagging.

Secondly, the report says "Mr Bigby was stabbed on Monday afternoon in a row which erupted between two groups of men after a drink was thrown.". Doesn't sound like anything to do with justice, rough or otherwise, or even revenge. Sounds more like whether Bigby committed the offences of which he was accused or not, his assailants were a bunch of scum who'd have been as prone to stab anyone else as him, regardless of any accusations of criminality.

[greektony]

Thank god for vigilantes.

[educatedfool]

Did anyone else think this was about a new Seagal movie?

[MadduckUK]

police porn

[iranu]

I don't really see the point in the OP simply because he is replacing one gross criminal act with another. The fact that the latter is committed against the alleged former is neither here nor there.

The whole point about having a judicial system is to allow everyone equality and due course with regard to the law and to avoid the vigilante or corrupt officials taking precedence . We do not know whether the murder was committed because of the alleged offence or not, or whether the victim was guilty so the point is moot.

Now if you wish to debate state sanctioned killing for such offences then by all means do so, but to say that one member of the public's actions that result in the death of another is good, without proof , is tantamount to approving all actions of all members of the public without proof, and that way lies anarchy.

Should the murderer of the alleged rapist be killed if the alleged rapist is found to be guilty or not guilty?

I'm well aware of the rape incident as reported in the press and personally think that those responsible do not deserve to be allowed to live let alone at the tax payers expense, however, it should remain in the hands of an independent body to make the judgement of whether they are guilty or not.

The big problem arises when the public do not think that they are being protected by the police/judiciary/laws/politicians. I believe that the public are disenfranchised with the way they are policed and if this does continue then we will see far more people taking the law into their own hands.

[mediaboy]

The public aren't pleased with the government let alone the public services, and I doubt that current government will change this.

Anarchy? From constant approval of public actions? I can see the point, but I feel it would become military law ruling instead of anarchy. The difference being that instead of a democracy you would have a tyranny, which is a few steps up from anarchy.

The murderer of any alleged rapist should have a trial, and yes - I would say that the innocence of the rapist is a factor in his punishment. After all, if you had a daughter and aforesaid daughter was then raped you'd want a harsh punishment, and the harshest punishment commonly available (aside from torture) is death.

However, I would not say that killing is something that should just be bypassed if you kill in revenge. If anything, killing or slaughtering a human should be done by an executioner, whose purpose is to execute. By taking the law into your own hands you cause more problems than if you leave it as it is...

Up to this point, you had a brilliant argument, then you said that they do not deserve to live alone at the tax payers expense.

Now then, couple of options: prison, death, release. So you don't want them to die, so that removes that one, you don't think they should live at the tax payer's expense, so that prevents you from sending them to prison, and that only leaves release! What other possibilites do you want added in? Do you want to see the world releasing prisoners. That would show approval of actions, leading to - as you yourself said - anarchy, or as I have also mentioned, tyranny. Neither of which is good.

Independant bodies are fine. As long as they stay impersonal, unbribeable and a few other things. Yes, it's all very well saying "they're independant, and will make the right choice" but even the best of people make mistakes, and if they condemn an innocent man what happens then? Or what happens when the rich multi-millionaire reaches into his pocket for his millions?

[Oobie-]

Originally Posted by Betty_Swallocks

<snip>
I don't want to start up the whole capital punishment debate again, but if someone is proved to have done something like that I really don't think they deserve to live in any part of our society, not even in prison. <snip>

Damn, we cant send them to Australia either