Pedo children’s entertainer sentenced to 30 years for sex crimes against kids in UK, Thailand

[johnnybangkok]

On 7/26/2023 at 6:57 AM, OneMoreFarang said:

If he is guilty of those crimes, then he should be sentenced to death.

I don't understand why many countries spend huge amounts of money to keep very bad criminals alive until they die in prison.

Just kill him officially, ordered by court. Problem solved. 

 

God not this old chestnut again!

Apart from the fact innocent people have been executed in the past, the death sentence has been proven to NOT deter or even reduce crime. All it ends up being is revenge and for a society to say I will be murdering someone because I want revenge, makes that society as bad as the criminal. 

[OneMoreFarang]

39 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

God not this old chestnut again!

Apart from the fact innocent people have been executed in the past, the death sentence has been proven to NOT deter or even reduce crime. All it ends up being is revenge and for a society to say I will be murdering someone because I want revenge, makes that society as bad as the criminal. 

With some criminals there is no doubt that they are guilty.

And depending on their crimes, it is likely that they will/would do it again.

Shoot them, they are dead, no more cost, no more risk. Problem solved.

Sometimes it is not necessary to overcomplicate things. 

[Goat]

On 7/26/2023 at 5:36 AM, webfact said:

A children’s entertainer in the UK.

 

It happens way to often. 

And for years before anything gets done about it. 

Something very wrong there.

[DaveE13]

Problem with a lot of these scum bags they get sectioned with all the other child molesters in prison. Who remembers the poor lad Jason swift. He was murdered by a large peoadofile gang in the 1980s.

Only one of that gang was killed in prison. 

Sadly all are out now

[johnnybangkok]

14 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

With some criminals there is no doubt that they are guilty.

And depending on their crimes, it is likely that they will/would do it again.

Shoot them, they are dead, no more cost, no more risk. Problem solved.

Sometimes it is not necessary to overcomplicate things. 

DNA evidence has exonerated so many people when there was “no doubt that they are guilty” it’s not funny. But the rest of your point is just the financial side, correct?
As has been pointed out to you before, the expense occurred through numerous appeals and delays with death sentence convictions are vastly higher than those with life sentences, so if that’s all that bothers you and we can’t risk killing an innocent person then a life sentence without parole is the only reasonable solution. 
Fortunately the vast majority of civilized countries agree with me and do exactly that. 

[OneMoreFarang]

26 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

DNA evidence has exonerated so many people when there was “no doubt that they are guilty” it’s not funny. But the rest of your point is just the financial side, correct?
As has been pointed out to you before, the expense occurred through numerous appeals and delays with death sentence convictions are vastly higher than those with life sentences, so if that’s all that bothers you and we can’t risk killing an innocent person then a life sentence without parole is the only reasonable solution. 
Fortunately the vast majority of civilized countries agree with me and do exactly that. 

Which part about "no doubt" do you not understand?

I.e. when Hassam Hussein was executed, did you worry that maybe they had the wrong guy? Or maybe he was innocent?

And did we have to wait to get through hundred appeals?

No.

Just kill him. No more cost, no more risk. Problem solved.

[johnnybangkok]

2 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Which part about "no doubt" do you not understand?

I.e. when Hassam Hussein was executed, did you worry that maybe they had the wrong guy? Or maybe he was innocent?

And did we have to wait to get through hundred appeals?

No.

Just kill him. No more cost, no more risk. Problem solved.

And what part of there is no such thing as  “no doubt” don’t you understand? 

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/innocence

Perhaps you can explain to these 190 people who died because there was “no doubt” but later exonerated. Oh, you can’t because they’re dead. 

[OneMoreFarang]

54 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

And what part of there is no such thing as  “no doubt” don’t you understand? 

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/innocence

Perhaps you can explain to these 190 people who died because there was “no doubt” but later exonerated. Oh, you can’t because they’re dead. 

Take my example of Saddam Hussein. Was there any doubt?

I don't suggest that every criminal should be executed. But there are some very bad criminals which are guilty without doubt. 

[RanongCat]

9 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Take my example of Saddam Hussein. Was there any doubt?

I don't suggest that every criminal should be executed. But there are some very bad criminals which are guilty without doubt. 

What was Sadman's guilt that made him need to die as in a mafia like execution? Or Gaddafi too ?

Pedophiles are sick. Social vigilante killer thinking is healthy?

[Neeranam]

On 7/26/2023 at 11:54 AM, Kwasaki said:

UK should pay Thailand to sent the scumbag back to spend 30 years in Thailand jail.

He'd be better off in a Thai jail, Thais are more compassionate. 

It's very sad, these perverts were often abused themselves. 

[kimamey]

On 7/26/2023 at 2:10 PM, arithai12 said:

 

I would never condone the death penalty. The idea that they should be able to take there own life if they wish has some merit. The one problem I can see is that you're then giving them a way out of a long prison sentence and giving them the choice. There may be some who think that is unacceptable.

 

Prison in general isn't a simple option, particularly with shorter sentences. For some it's a wakeup call which leads them to avoid offending again whilst for others it's just something they go through before carrying on as before. If you've got a family and /or a lot of friends and you enjoy going out, then even a short stay in prison won't be fun. If you're on your own, lonely, possibly homeless and sleeping in a shop doorway every night then it's probably not that bad and may be preferable.

 

For longer sentences, such as in this case you may well just get used to it, as how and where you live.

 

People are different and come from different environments. A 3 bedroom house with a small garden and a 3 week holiday a year with social events for the rest is fine for many people. A multibillionaire or a keen mountain climber, explorer, ect might consider it a prison. Many people who are famous find the same problem.

 

It's not a simple issue and I don't think money should be the main consideration.

[kimamey]

On 7/26/2023 at 2:19 PM, bignok said:

Most are guilty. 

Thanks for agreeing with what I said.

[kimamey]

On 7/26/2023 at 2:34 PM, RichardColeman said:

I dunno, given the choice many if us wold want to live on their own in later life. Cushy UK prison, own room, tv, 3 meals, no annoying people,  etc, not exactly a lonely box on the side of the road is it. If I went into prison and had the option i'd go solitary 100%

It depends on the extent of the isolation and the type of person involved, which I've mentioned in another post. If you still have some human contact then it may be ok for some. Without, it's more like solitary confinement which after a short time (2 weeks I think) is considered torture. Maybe you didn't mean 'solitary' as I doubt you'd have a tv.

 

I would think in this case it would be confinement with others away from the general prison population. That might not be so bad.

 

Something I've just thought of. If isolation isn't so bad, why were there so many complaints from people quarantined in comfortable hotel rooms due to Covid. That didn't seem to be that popular.