Three convicted murderers working in Belfast shopping center.

CaptainInsano

Billy86 wrote: »

There is no concept to grasp here.

These people committed murders. They served the sentence that the courts saw fit for them and were released. If anyone has any issue with this, they can feel free to make another thread about it. This thread is about them being fired from their jobs as a result of an awful piece of tabloid journalism, when their employer had already know that they were even convicts and knew at least one of them had been in for murder. This thread is not about prison sentences or the death penalty.

So now if someone says "good they were fired, they should not be allowed work" that means their only real other legal option is the dole. If that same person says "no, they should not be allowed that either" then what alternative means would these three man have for food and shelter? Crime. As in theft, burglary, fraud, etc. That would be their only recourse... if you cannot work and xenon claim welfare, you have no legal means of earning money. It is that simple. I really don't know why this is so hard for some people to understand, other than being deliberately obtuse by claiming the only crime they will resort to is murder in that instance. Murder doesn't put food on the table (unless the person was carrying a fair deal of cash), burglary and theft do.

Do you get this? No work + no welfare = no options for basic necessities, barring begging and/or crime. It is really very, very simple.

Who said that they shouldn't be allowed to work or get welfare? One poster said they should have served longer sentences. Haven't seen a single post saying they are not entitled to work or welfare now that they are released.

CaptainInsano

Billy86 wrote: »

There is no concept to grasp here.

These people committed murders. They served the sentence that the courts saw fit for them and were released. If anyone has any issue with this, they can feel free to make another thread about it. This thread is about them being fired from their jobs as a result of an awful piece of tabloid journalism, when their employer had already know that they were even convicts and knew at least one of them had been in for murder. This thread is not about prison sentences or the death penalty.

So now if someone says "good they were fired, they should not be allowed work" that means their only real other legal option is the dole. If that same person says "no, they should not be allowed that either" then what alternative means would these three man have for food and shelter? Crime. As in theft, burglary, fraud, etc. That would be their only recourse... if you cannot work and xenon claim welfare, you have no legal means of earning money. It is that simple. I really don't know why this is so hard for some people to understand, other than being deliberately obtuse by claiming the only crime they will resort to is murder in that instance. Murder doesn't put food on the table (unless the person was carrying a fair deal of cash), burglary and theft do.

Do you get this? No work + no welfare = no options for basic necessities, barring begging and/or crime. It is really very, very simple.

You really should read back over posts, it's embarrassing at this stage.

Billy86

CaptainInsano wrote: »

We are discussing these 3 men who committed murder obviously, seeing as that's what the thread is about. The post you quoted was in reference to them. And it was in response to the other poster who said that if they murder again it's because they lost their job. Not because they are not rehabilitated. Reading back through posts will help.

Ok, at this point you are just making stuff up.

Laois6556 said he was happy they were fired, that he hoped they didn't get any jobs, that they weren't entitled to social welfare, and that he hoped they lived "short, unhappy lives". This does nothing to address what happens if they are not allowed work or claim the dole.

I pointed out that the result of this would almost certainly be crime, because they won't happily starve to death with no roof over their heads. I then said I would like my bed to be stuffed with million Euro notes with Kate Upton and Mila Kunis on top when I got home. Neither are remotely realistic scenarios.

I never said they would go and murder people, I said they would resort to crime as a means of income if there was no alternative like employment or welfare.

And it was at that point that YOU came in, having clearly not read the thread before that point, spouting nonsense like...

''Well it's either go on the dole or murder someone again.''
Pretty sure I know which one a properly rehabilitated person would pick.
I had to go on the dole once, killing someone didn't even enter my head!

...when it has already been mentioned MULTIPLE TIMES that if they were not allowed to work or to claim the dole as some had suggested, then they would be liable to revert to crime. Not murder, crime... as in robbery, theft, fraud, etc in order to make money to live off of rather than starve to death on the streets.

At no point in our exchanges between each other was there comment from Laois6556 or from me about them murdering people over having lost their jobs. Not once.

So please, do read the posts in future so you know the stance of whoever it is you are arguing against rather than swinging blindly into the proverbial darkness and making an eejit of yourself in the process. And whatever you do, don't go making stuff up to try and save face after the fact - that just makes it worse.

BetterThanThou

Rehabilitation does work, I know someone who was put in prison, and while the reason wasn't nearly as bad as murder, he definitely deserved to do the time for it. This was before I ever knew him, and now he's one of the nicest and most selfless people I know, I didn't even believe it when I heard what he was in prison for. I'd argue that someone who was put in prison for murder would deserve a much longer sentence, and potentially even death, but that's not to say every single murderer is going to go back to a life of crime. The matter of fact is, they're out of prison now, they should be allowed have a productive life, rather than sitting on the dole for the rest of their lives, or, even worse, having to resort back to crime in order to live. Of course, there should be restrictions on the jobs they're allowed have, but I really don't see the problem with a convicted murderer working in a hardware store.

Billy86

CaptainInsano wrote: »

Who said that they shouldn't be allowed to work or get welfare? One poster said they should have served longer sentences. Haven't seen a single post saying they are not entitled to work or welfare now that they are released.

That was literally the back and forward I had with Laois6556 that you felt compelled to jump in on! I repeatedly said their prison sentences were irrelevant to this thread because they are, and his respibse was that he just hoped they should live short, unhappy lives, and should not be in a position to claim welfare or earn employment. His response to if he would prefer they had a job now that they are free and that is all that is relevant, of to have them stuck on the dole, or to have them destitute and likely resorting to crime - his response was essentially "none of the above". Hence, no jobs and no welfare for them.

Very straight forward, despite your active imagination.

CaptainInsano

Billy86 wrote: »

Ok, at this point you are just making stuff up.

Laois6556 said he was happy they were fired, that he hoped they didn't get any jobs, that they weren't entitled to social welfare, and that he hoped they lived "short, unhappy lives". This does nothing to address what happens if they are not allowed work or claim the dole.

I pointed out that the result of this would almost certainly be crime, because they won't happily starve to death with no roof over their heads. I then said I would like my bed to be stuffed with million Euro notes with Kate Upton and Mila Kunis on top when I got home. Neither are remotely realistic scenarios.

I never said they would go and murder people, I said they would resort to crime as a means of income if there was no alternative like employment or welfare.

And it was at that point that YOU came in, having clearly not read the thread before that point, spouting nonsense like...



...when it has already been mentioned MULTIPLE TIMES that if they were not allowed to work or to claim the dole as some had suggested, then they would be liable to revert to crime. Not murder, crime... as in robbery, theft, fraud, etc in order to make money to live off of rather than starve to death on the streets.

At no point in our exchanges between each other was there comment from Laois6556 or from me about them murdering people over having lost their jobs. Not once.

So please, do read the posts in future so you know the stance of whoever it is you are arguing against rather than swinging blindly into the proverbial darkness and making an eejit of yourself in the process. And whatever you do, don't go making stuff up to try and save face after the fact - that just makes it worse.

Says the man that quoted my earlier post about murder and completely missed all the sarcasm in it, we were actually agreed on the fact that they won't commit murder because of no dole. Was hoping you could spot that yourself but no luck. Both posts you quoted were in response to a poster that said if they commit murder again it's because of boredom and anger. And I like how you turned one posters opinion into the general stance of anyone that disagreed with you. As for being aware of the stance of who you are arguing with, practice what you preach. I said from the beginning that they shouldn't have lost their jobs, but as rehabilitated citizens they need to get on with. Anyway I refuse to discuss this further because you can't follow the discussion and keep getting the wrong end of the stick and now you're resorting to name calling.

CaptainInsano

Billy86 wrote: »

What possible point are you trying to make here? You are aware that other crimes exist in the world than murder, right? I mean I can only hope you are being deliberately obtuse here.

If you don't allow someone hold a job or claim the dole, do you expect them to waste away and accept a slow, painful death from starvation. Or would you expect them to commit crimes such as petty theft, burglary, armed burglary and the likes?

Because you do know those are also crimes, right?

This is the post in question where you quoted my post doused in sarcasm, I'll try to be clearer in future. Good night.

CaptainInsano

BetterThanThou wrote: »

Rehabilitation does work, I know someone who was put in prison, and while the reason wasn't nearly as bad as murder, he definitely deserved to do the time for it. This was before I ever knew him, and now he's one of the nicest and most selfless people I know, I didn't even believe it when I heard what he was in prison for. I'd argue that someone who was put in prison for murder would deserve a much longer sentence, and potentially even death, but that's not to say every single murderer is going to go back to a life of crime. The matter of fact is, they're out of prison now, they should be allowed have a productive life, rather than sitting on the dole for the rest of their lives, or, even worse, having to resort back to crime in order to live. Of course, there should be restrictions on the jobs they're allowed have, but I really don't see the problem with a convicted murderer working in a hardware store.

The issue was more so the fact that there were 3 of them and in a location that would be distressing to the victims families.

Billy86

CaptainInsano wrote: »

Says the man that quoted my earlier post about murder and completely missed all the sarcasm in it, we were actually agreed on the fact that they won't commit murder because of no dole. Was hoping you could spot that yourself but no luck. Both posts you quoted were in response to a poster that said if they commit murder again it's because of boredom and anger. And I like how you turned one posters opinion into the general stance of anyone that disagreed with you. As for being aware of the stance of who you are arguing with, practice what you preach. I said from the beginning that they shouldn't have lost their jobs, but as rehabilitated citizens they need to get on with. Anyway I refuse to discuss this further because you can't follow the discussion and keep getting the wrong end of the stick and now you're resorting to name calling.

Actually if you had been paying any attention you would have known that I was arguing with someone who didn't want the dole to be an option for them either. But minor details like the central crux of the argument you dived into mustn't really matter...or something?

Billy86

CaptainInsano wrote: »

You really should read back over posts, it's embarrassing at this stage.

OK so, let's start with my first post. I am going to snip put the death penalty stuff, because it has no relevance to this thread.

Billy86 wrote: »

Remind all of us what exactly that has to do with this tabloid, the employers, or these three men going about getting jobs once they were freed?

This was my in response to Laois6556 saying their sentences should have been longer. It belongs in a different thread.

Laois6556 wrote: »

I was asked a couple of times for my standpoint, I just answered.

This is his response, despite the fact that his standpoint had nothing to do with the point of this thread.

Billy86 wrote: »

But all of that is irrelevant anyway... your argument is with our court system, which has nothing to do with this story - the tabloid, the employer or even the employeew/ex convicts. The criminals were tried by our court system, they were deemed guilty and sentenced by our court system, and they were later deemed reformed and released by our court system. None of that has anything to do with if they should be allowed have a job or not, if they should be allowed on the dole or not, or be forced to revert to a life of crime instead to stop from starving (typo) to death. That is the danger of this story and what it has done.

Which I then pointed out to him in detail in the post above. Nokia also pointed this out, to which Lapis6556 responded:

Laois6556 wrote: »

Yes, my view is that they shouldn't be out and now that they are I hope they have the most unhappiest lives possible. Not very constructive but there ya go.

This is the point at which he basically made clear he was happy they were fired and wished them nothing but the worst for their lives.

Billy86 wrote: »

So do you hope to pay for their dole for the rest of their lives, or do you hope to see an increase in crime?

I then asked him which he would prefer since he had acknowledged that they were free but was delighted they were not working.

Laois6556 wrote: »

Obviously neither.

This was his response. So he is delighted they are out of work, but does not want to see them on the dole and does not want an increase from crime even though that and begging would be their only alternatives (and begging won't make enough to keep someone fed for long, never mind a roof over their head).

Billy86 wrote: »

Well they are no longer in prison, so if you don't want them to have job then your only two other options are paying for their dole of seeing an increase in crime.

I repeated my point, because it was quite straight forward and he was not giving any sort of a logical answer.

Laois6556 wrote: »

No, you asked what I'd hope would happen to them. I hope they live unhappy, short lives.

Again he answers without giving a logical answer, because it is not in human nature to quietly waste away and starve to death without going to desperate measures (such as crime) to better ones situation, even if "bettering" it is getting the cost of food for a few days, or a night in a hostel. His answer basically equated to 'I am delighted they are out of work, but I don't want them on the dole, and I don't want them finding any alternative means of income for food and shelter'. This is completely unrealistic on a number of levels.

Billy86 wrote: »

And I hope to get home to find my bed stuffed to the brim with million Euro notes that Kate Upton and Mila Kunis and waiting for me on top of. But then I realise that not realistic, just like your hopes for them to willingly starve themselves to death rather than get a job, claim the dole or revert back to crime. Because those are the only real three options.

And so is this scenario. I got home. There were no million Euro bolls. There was no Kate Upton. There was no Mila Kunis. There was only reality. And that was exactly my point - in reality, if you deny a person any legal means of income for basic necessities like food and shelter, they will use illegal means instead.

...and then...

CaptainInsano wrote: »

How is reverting back to crime an option?
''Well it's either go on the dole or murder someone again.''
Pretty sure I know which one a properly rehabilitated person would pick.
I had to go on the dole once, killing someone didn't even enter my head!
Weird how it works.

BOOM! In you come taking about them committing more murders out of the blue. And how they can just go in the dole instead... WHEN WE HAD CLEARLY ESTABLISHED LAOIS6556 DID NOT WANT THIS EITHER. And trying to put words in my mouth that the dole would drove them to murder.

Sarcastic or not is irrelevant, because I was not arguing with someone who wanted them stuck on the dole. I was arguing with someone who wanted them given no legal means of income, and to go against all human nature and decide to waste away from starvation and homelessness rather than try to survive by any means, namely crime.

Very straight forward stuff.

the_syco

tritium wrote: »

Basically we have three guys who committed ( undeniable horrible) crimes and went to prison for them. They've now been released on licence (bearing in mind they're not responsible for how the system is administered or whether or not they've served "enough" time).

The problem is that they have been given a job that is fairly close to where they brutally murdered, and also in full public view. Had they been given a job that was not close to where they committed the crime, or in a not-so-public place, I doubt there'd be such uproar.

That aside, I do wonder about the bit from the story;

Timpson Locksmiths — which employed Colin Boles in a full-time position, and Roy Craig and Conor McCrory in work experience roles — has a reputation for helping some of the most violent criminals behind bars.

Locksmith helping violent criminals just doesn't sit right with me, tbh!

CaptainInsano

Billy86 wrote: »

Actually if you had been paying any attention you would have known that I was arguing with someone who didn't want the dole to be an option for them either. But minor details like the central crux of the argument you dived into mustn't really matter...or something?

I only quoted you when you said crime was a viable option, and I said it wasn't. Plenty of people get by, there's always help and I haven't heard of many people slowly starving to death recently. But yeah, don't let that stop you making exaggerated hypothetical situations that would never happen and don't let it stop you misinterpreting my posts to other posters. You'll find that you proposed the no dole situation to me, regardless of what you said to other posters. After that you jumped on everything I said and rather embarrassingly made it know that you didn't understand a thing I had said. We'll leave it there :-)

Billy86

CaptainInsano wrote: »

I only quoted you when you said crime was a viable option, and I said it wasn't. Plenty of people get by, there's always help and I haven't heard of many people slowly starving to death recently. But yeah, don't let that stop you making exaggerated hypothetical situations that would never happen and don't let it stop you misinterpreting my posts to other posters. You'll find that you proposed the no dole situation to me, regardless of what you said to other posters. After that you jumped on everything I said and rather embarrassingly made it know that you didn't understand a thing I had said. We'll leave it there :-)

If someone does not want an ex convict to earn money by employment or by welfare, how do they expect then to get money to live and have a roof over their head?

Because that is the conversation you jumped into. Laois6556 does not want them employed or on the dole. You jumping no in that "people don't commit murder because they are on the dole" offers comically less than nothing to that discussion.

Mal-Adjusted

Laois6556 wrote: »

I'm allowed to have an opinion, I hope these fellas never live in peace.

You are allowed an opinion, but it has nothing to do with this thread. Execution threads pop up about once a week. that would probably be the best place for you.

As for the rest of your post, put away the pitchfork.

CaptainInsano wrote: »

you jumped on everything I said and rather embarrassingly made it know that you didn't understand a thing I had said

repeatedly calling someone embarrassing doesn't make it so, i'm afraid.

Back on topic. what's the actual likelihood of these lads starting to commit crimes if they can't find work in NI (a distinct possibility) or claim dole. could they not just go to Britain (or Ireland) where they'd be lost in the crowd, or have relatives who's put them up?

CaptainInsano

Billy86 wrote: »

If someone does not want an ex convict to earn money by employment or by welfare, how do they expect then to get money to live and have a roof over their head?

Because that is the conversation you jumped into. Laois6556 does not want them employed or on the dole. You jumping no in that "people don't commit murder because they are on the dole" offers comically less than nothing to that discussion.

Like I said, it was a sarcastic example of the absurdity of the notion that crime is an real option in tough situations (In places like Ireland and the UK, I might add, not impoverished countries where it really is a matter of life and death, like you seem to think it is here.)
I don't know what that posters solution would be in that scenario but I would say:
Poverty doesn't justify crime, you have this irrational fear that if people don't steal or screw over decent people they'll slowly starve to death.
If for whatever reason you can't get benefits then yeah you can end up homeless. Being homeless is horrible I'm sure, but you can still eat and stay in a shelter when available, a sh1t existence, but one I'd chose over harming others, and if the rehabilitation system truly works, ex criminals would too.
In the end it's irrelevant to me, like I said, you put the dole scenario to me, I think they should be allowed the dole, and work.
Now I've an awful pain in my face from talking to you, but it was an interesting discussion. Good night, for the last time.

CaptainInsano

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

repeatedly calling someone embarrassing doesn't make it so, i'm afraid.

Back on topic. what's the actual likelihood of these lads starting to commit crimes if they can't find work in NI (a distinct possibility) or claim dole. could they not just go to Britain (or Ireland) where they'd be lost in the crowd, or have relatives who's put them up?

How could anyone possibly know the answers to those questions? Haha.

Mal-Adjusted

I'm saying that these lads clearly have more options than the ones being presented here.

CaptainInsano

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

I'm saying that these lads clearly have more options than the ones being presented here.

Well one of them is on day release so I would say his options are very limited. We can only pointlessly speculate about the other two.
I wouldn't be so quick to rule out the possibility of them committing crimes while working either, time will answer that one.

bucketybuck

CaptainInsano wrote: »

How could anyone possibly know the answers to those questions? Haha.

Perhaps by spending less time missing the point and less time misrepresenting people.

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

Back on topic. what's the actual likelihood of these lads starting to commit crimes if they can't find work in NI (a distinct possibility) or claim dole. could they not just go to Britain (or Ireland) where they'd be lost in the crowd, or have relatives who's put them up?

Their chances of finding gainful employment in any industry are always going to be quite limited. Any company that does a criminal records check is going to shy away from hiring them for obvious reasons, and even places that don't will likely be put off by what must be a CV with large employment gaps in it. Especially in a recession where the job market is highly competitive these guys are always going to be back of the queue for good jobs.

Thats why it would be so easy for them to fall into a criminal lifestyle, when they have zero other options it must be a constant temptation to get involved in theft or drugs just to get some easy cash. After all, whats a conviction for theft to a convicted murderer? That brings us to the point of the thread (which a few posters seemed to miss spectacularly). The easy option for these guys is the life of crime, but instead they appeared to be making an attempt to go straight. While I don't like murderers I do want them to stop being criminals and start being productive members of society and getting a job is a step in that direction.

Now because of shoddy tabloid rags that option has been taken away, these guys are back on welfare and more susceptible to temptation. How the fuck does that benefit anybody?

CaptainInsano

bucketybuck wrote: »

Perhaps by spending less time missing the point and less time misrepresenting people.



Their chances of finding gainful employment in any industry are always going to be quite limited. Any company that does a criminal records check is going to shy away from hiring them for obvious reasons, and even places that don't will likely be put off by what must be a CV with large employment gaps in it. Especially in a recession where the job market is highly competitive these guys are always going to be back of the queue for good jobs.

Thats why it would be so easy for them to fall into a criminal lifestyle, when they have zero other options it must be a constant temptation to get involved in theft or drugs just to get some easy cash. After all, whats a conviction for theft to a convicted murderer? That brings us to the point of the thread (which a few posters seemed to miss spectacularly). The easy option for these guys is the life of crime, but instead they appeared to be making an attempt to go straight. While I don't like murderers I do want them to stop being criminals and start being productive members of society and getting a job is a step in that direction.

Now because of shoddy tabloid rags that option has been taken away, these guys are back on welfare and more susceptible to temptation. How the fuck does that benefit anybody?

It seems you are the one missing the point. If they fall back into crime it means rehabilitation has failed. They lost their jobs, happens as all the time. If their response to that is to start stealing, in comparison to what an ordinary person would do, it means they weren't ready to leave prison. Like I said earlier, there lives are going to be tough now, that's part of the price you pay by committing serious crimes, nobody wants you around, and rightly so, but it's up to them to show their characters now.

Mr. CooL ICE

CaptainInsano wrote: »

It seems you are the one missing the point. If they fall back into crime it means rehabilitation has failed. They lost their jobs, happens as all the time. If their response to that is to start stealing, in comparison to what an ordinary person would do, it means they weren't ready to leave prison. Like I said earlier, there lives are going to be tough now, that's part of the price you pay by committing serious crimes, nobody wants you around, and rightly so, but it's up to them to show their characters now.

He isn't missing the point. Your point is based on spite, not logic.

CaptainInsano

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

He isn't missing the point. Your point is based on spite, not logic.

Do you even know what my point is? How is it one bit spiteful?

darced

This post has been deleted.

CaptainInsano

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well their sentence now being irrelevant I think that they should be allowed to work, although to employ them all in the location where their victims families might see them is ridiculous, if there's any positive about this is that they don't have to look at them now, the families have been completely ignored in all of this and should have been taken into consideration upon employment.
I also the think that concern now that they will re offend having lost their jobs from the people that are heavily supporting these guys shows that they have little faith in the rehabilitation process too.

bucketybuck

CaptainInsano wrote: »

I also the think that concern now that they will re offend having lost their jobs from the people that are heavily supporting these guys shows that they have little faith in the rehabilitation process too.

You can't have it both ways. You cannot say people have no faith in the rehabilitation process when that process has not been allowed to fully take place.

Laois6556

Billy86 wrote: »

Laois6556 said he was happy they were fired, that he hoped they didn't get any jobs, that they weren't entitled to social welfare, and that he hoped they lived "short, unhappy lives".

I only said the first part and the last part of your sentence. Stop making stuff up. You actually spent nearly a page then trying to back up your lies.

Laois6556

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

You are allowed an opinion, but it has nothing to do with this thread. Execution threads pop up about once a week. that would probably be the best place for you.

As for the rest of your post, put away the pitchfork.

I was asked to specify what should their punishment have been, it had nothing to do with my original point.

I'll keep my pitchfork with me thanks and you can continue on fighting for the rights of murderers.

Mr. CooL ICE

CaptainInsano wrote: »

Do you even know what my point is? How is it one bit spiteful?

Because your opinion of how these criminals should be handled is emotively driven.

The justice system has seen fit that they were sentenced, served their sentences and have been released. If the justice system was emotively driven, they would have been handled by a blood thirsty lynch mob. Luckily enough, society in this part of the world doesn't work like that.

CaptainInsano

bucketybuck wrote: »

You can't have it both ways. You cannot say people have no faith in the rehabilitation process when that process has not been allowed to fully take place.

If the process has been successful then these guys leave prison saying I'm never going back there again no matter what . Society isn't going to mother them and say 'oh we better be nice to these guys in case they go bad again.' Society doesn't treat any of us this way. I'm sure they have thick skin at this stage, if a common life event sets them off then they are inherently inclined to commit crime . We can discuss this until the cows come home but only time will tell now. And before anyone comes in all guns blazing again without reading my previous posts,I'm for ex criminals getting work because I believe rehabilitation is the only real viable option for criminals but putting 3 of these together was obviously going to cause a stir, it was stupid from the start. There's always someone from the media tracking these guys, it's an unfortunate fact of life. Hopefully it relieves some stress on the families, a point which everyone has ignored so far repeatedly, that's the only positive that can come out of this.

CaptainInsano

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

Because your opinion of how these criminals should be handled is emotively driven.

The justice system has seen fit that they were sentenced, served their sentences and have been released. If the justice system was emotively driven, they would have been handled by a blood thirsty lynch mob. Luckily enough, society in this part of the world doesn't work like that.

You obviously are completely unaware of my view point.
You just saw me discussing a very specific topic about rehabilitation with a person who you agreed with earlier in the thread and assumed I was someone calling for these guys' heads, didn't you?

Laois6556

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

Because your opinion of how these criminals should be handled is emotively driven.

The justice system has seen fit that they were sentenced, served their sentences and have been released. If the justice system was emotively driven, they would have been handled by a blood thirsty lynch mob. Luckily enough, society in this part of the world doesn't work like that.

The justice system should back up the publics opinion on what punishment is adequate for various crimes. Surely no one thinks 10 years is adequate for these 3?

Mal-Adjusted

Laois6556 wrote: »

The justice system should back up the public's opinion on what punishment is adequate for various crimes.

The problem there is that "the public" don't necessarily make the best decisions. The mob mentality is dangerous and can be very emotive and not prone to much reasoned debate.. just look back over this thread any any number of others about the death penalty and you'll see why that's a terrible idea.

Laois6556 wrote: »

Surely no one thinks 10 years is adequate for these 3?

personally, no, I don't. but it doesn't matter. they're out.

Laois6556 wrote: »

I'll keep my pitchfork with me thanks and you can continue on fighting for the rights of murderers.

What an absurd remark. These people are out. All the indignation you can muster up isn't going to put them behind bars again. Weather we like it or not, criminals get out, many of them are killers. It's up to society to figure a way out to deal with them and yes, integrate them back into that society. Surely you must realize that hounding someone out of a job is detrimental to society?

Laois6556

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

The problem there is that "the public" don't necessarily make the best decisions. The mob mentality is dangerous and can be very emotive and not prone to much reasoned debate.. just look back over this thread any any number of others about the death penalty and you'll see why that's a terrible idea.


personally, no, I don't. but it doesn't matter. they're out.

Well it does matter, you just said you think 10 years was too lenient for these fellas but before that said the public shouldn't have a say in these things. No one would agree that a 10 year sentence is adequate so the justice system is clearly out of step with public opinion. It needs to be addressed.

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

What an absurd remark. These people are out. All the indignation you can muster up isn't going to put them behind bars again. Weather we like it or not, criminals get out, many of them are killers. It's up to society to figure a way out to deal with them and yes, integrate them back into that society. Surely you must realize that hounding someone out of a job is detrimental to society?

First of all we should be campaigning to change the justice system. Once they're out they should be monitored very closely, if they have changed into decent human beings then they would understand why this has to happen. Hounding these 3 out of a job is detrimental to them, not to anyone else.

Mal-Adjusted

Laois6556 wrote: »

Well it does matter, you just said you think 10 years was too lenient for these fellas but before that said the public shouldn't have a say in these things. No one would agree that a 10 year sentence is adequate so the justice system is clearly out of step with public opinion. It needs to be addressed.

And I stand by that. If you let the public decide the punishment of various crimes, you'll end up with a mob mentality. no foresight, no reasoned debate. Just a swirling mass of appalled indignation looking for a pound of flesh and inevitably the punishment won't fit the crime. Like i said before, just go look at almost any thread on the subject and you'll see calls for everything from castration to torture to rape to murder. That's why the public is unfit to dole out punishments.

Laois6556 wrote: »

First of all we should be campaigning to change the justice system. Once they're out they should be monitored very closely, if they have changed into decent human beings then they would understand why this has to happen.

I agree.

Laois6556 wrote: »

Hounding these 3 out of a job is detrimental to them, not to anyone else.

That's very shortsighted of you. If these people can't get jobs, then that's (at best) three more people to feed and shelter. I would consider that detrimental to everybody living in the U.K.

Roquentin

Laois6556 wrote: »

Well it does matter, you just said you think 10 years was too lenient for these fellas but before that said the public shouldn't have a say in these things. No one would agree that a 10 year sentence is adequate so the justice system is clearly out of step with public opinion. It needs to be addressed.



First of all we should be campaigning to change the justice system. Once they're out they should be monitored very closely, if they have changed into decent human beings then they would understand why this has to happen. Hounding these 3 out of a job is detrimental to them, not to anyone else.

i agree with you. for me they should have been in for life. Hell id even bring in the death penalty for the sex offenders and animal abusers and serial killers etc.

But there is no point in releasing them and then not letting them get on with their lives.....

CaptainInsano

Roquentin wrote: »

i agree with you. for me they should have been in for life. Hell id even bring in the death penalty for the sex offenders and animal abusers and serial killers etc.

But there is no point in releasing them and then not letting them get on with their lives.....

Would you agree that they should never have been given those jobs based on location to victim's families?

Billy86

Laois6556 wrote: »

I only said the first part and the last part of your sentence. Stop making stuff up. You actually spent nearly a page then trying to back up your lies.

So let's revert back to title question then. They are now out of jail, so any opinion you have on their sentences are irrelevant. Would you:

A) Prefer to see them be allowed get jobs to earn their own living legally for basic necessities like food and shelter.
Prefer that they were not allowed jobs, but were instead placed on welfare for the rest of their lives to have a legal means for basic necessities like food and shelter.
C) Prefer they were not allow to get jobs or claim welfare at all, and be a major risk of resorting to crimes such as fraud, theft and burglary for basic necessities such as food and shelter due to not being able to do so legally.

Roquentin

CaptainInsano wrote: »

Would you agree that they should never have been given those jobs based on location to victim's families?

im caught in two minds: on one hand what they did was awful and on the other hand they were let back into society, have paid their dues etc etc

times like this youd love stalinism. those lads would be working in some gulag in siberia now and for the remainder of their lives

bb1234567

hfallada wrote: »

What do we expect convicts to do out of prison? Sit at home in their council house,living off welfare until they die? If they are reformed, there is no harm in them working and contributing to society.

And what if you were a friend or acquanitance of one of the innocent victims who were murdered and walked into the shop to find their murderer there? Youd be happy to go in there and be served by these people , knowing they brutally murdered these people? How are any of us supposed to know theyve been rehabilitated?
I dont care what some psychiatrist says, Im never goin into a shop with that fella who murdered the poor maria mconnell girl.

Mr. CooL ICE

bb1234567 wrote: »

And what if you were a friend or acquanitance of one of the innocent victims who were murdered and walked into the shop to find their murderer there? Youd be happy to go in there and be served by these people , knowing they brutally murdered these people? How are any of us supposed to know theyve been rehabilitated?
I dont care what some psychiatrist says, Im never goin into a shop with that fella who murdered the poor maria mconnell girl.

I'm sure there is more than one place in Belfast to get your keys cut

Roquentin

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

I'm sure there is more than one place in Belfast to get your keys cut

no there was only that one place and it just happened to employ three convicted killers:pac:

bb1234567

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

I'm sure there is more than one place in Belfast to get your keys cut

Its not the keys..
I would just assume that for anyone who knew the victims, seeing these murders would be a very traumatic experience.

Irish Guitarist

Would the people who say these criminals are reformed be comfortable with the idea of one of their female family members handing the key of her front door to a rapist to get it cut?

I hate this "they paid their debt to society" nonsense. If you kill or rape someone you can never repay your debt.

bb1234567

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

Would the people who say these criminals are reformed be comfortable with the idea of one of their female family members handing the key of her front door to a rapist to get it cut?

I hate this "they paid their debt to society" nonsense. If you kill or rape someone you can never repay your debt.

Exactly. And what if these guys had a job like an electrician or plumber which involved them coming into your house, I very much doubt any of the people on here who say they deserve to work again and integrate would ever employ them .

cloud493

I don't think they can be 'forgiven' in that sense. I would be a supporter of the death penalty for people like that. But as a society, we are committed to rehabilitation for these people or at least try to. What good does driving them out of a job, and onto the dole or back to crime do for anyone?

Northern Monkey

One of them fixed a broken watch strap for me recently. Did a good job too.

Laois6556

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

And I stand by that. If you let the public decide the punishment of various crimes, you'll end up with a mob mentality. no foresight, no reasoned debate. Just a swirling mass of appalled indignation looking for a pound of flesh and inevitably the punishment won't fit the crime. Like i said before, just go look at almost any thread on the subject and you'll see calls for everything from castration to torture to rape to murder. That's why the public is unfit to dole out punishments.


I agree.


That's very shortsighted of you. If these people can't get jobs, then that's (at best) three more people to feed and shelter. I would consider that detrimental to everybody living in the U.K.

Obviously the punishment handed down to rapists and murderers isn't line with public opinion. There can be a reasoned debate about it and there needs to be.
If the best option remaining is to get them jobs somewhere, it should be nowhere near where they commited their murders.

Laois6556

Billy86 wrote: »

So let's revert back to title question then. They are now out of jail, so any opinion you have on their sentences are irrelevant. Would you:

A) Prefer to see them be allowed get jobs to earn their own living legally for basic necessities like food and shelter.
Prefer that they were not allowed jobs, but were instead placed on welfare for the rest of their lives to have a legal means for basic necessities like food and shelter.
C) Prefer they were not allow to get jobs or claim welfare at all, and be a major risk of resorting to crimes such as fraud, theft and burglary for basic necessities such as food and shelter due to not being able to do so legally.

There's no mention of your lies in that post.

Laois6556

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

I'm sure there is more than one place in Belfast to get your keys cut

So this man viciously killed your relative but you should **** off to some other key cutters and leave this poor man live in peace?

bucketybuck

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

Would the people who say these criminals are reformed

Who said that? You are another that has missed the entire point.