Ethics of beating the ****e outta criminals.

end of the road · 26-08-2016 02:55PM

Musketeer4 wrote: »

I would support the punishment beating of paedophile suspects.
What happens in those african lynching videos on LiveLeak is too good for anyone accused of paedophilia.

so you don't believe in innocent until proven guilty then? after all, a suspect is a suspect, not a convict.

Musketeer4 · 26-08-2016 03:02PM

A perpetrator cannot be convicted unless it can be proven! Anyone will tell you that it can be exceedingly difficult to prove that someone was guilty even when everyone knows full well that they had done. Pedophiles especially go to extraordinary lengths to cover their tracks. In fact I know of a local in my home area and the dogs going the road know that he's interfered with children. He used come up to me and my when I was 12 or 13 asking me weird ****. So yes, once it is generally accepted that someone has or has the potential to abuse a child I would have no issue with local people banding together to neutralise them.

starshine1234 · 26-08-2016 03:16PM

end of the road wrote: »

so you don't believe in innocent until proven guilty then? after all, a suspect is a suspect, not a convict.

You accept that the government makes mistakes. You accept it when the government fails to prosecute serious criminals.

In some cases the state flat out refuses to even investigate serious crimes. The state is intent on protecting some criminals. I have given several examples on this thread, including a mass grave of 800 bodies which the Gardai refuse to investigate.

The state is committing criminal offences when it protects people.

But you say no, individual people can never make a mistake, even when their intentions are good.

But the State's intention is to subvert the law, and to prevent the law from being applied to its mates and you accept that.

The state is acting with genuine malice. I support genuine vigilantes who are genuinely trying to make the world a better place. I would also support the government if they were genuinely trying to prosecute serious crime and merely making mistakes but in many cases the State deliberately lets people off, like Martin Callinan for example.

Martin deliberately destroyed a persons life. That deserves some retribution and if the state refuses to do so, then a charity should step in to fill the breach. It's the charitable thing to do.

El_Duderino 09 · 26-08-2016 03:23PM

Musketeer4 wrote:

Generally I don't support vigilante street justice and whatever about other criminals, I would support the punishment beating of paedophile suspects. They have no-one to blame but themselves and news of beatings helps to spread public awareness of these people.

'paedophile suspect'

Musketeer4 wrote:

What happens in those african lynching videos on LiveLeak is too good for anyone accused of paedophilia.

'accused of paedophilia'. I don't know if this is a mistake or if you would actually support beating people who have been accused of crimes.

Either was it's not accurate enough and it's waaay too easy to get a mob riled up and waaay too hard to explain to the mob, the difference between being 'accused' and being 'found guilty'.

Bad an all as the justice system might be, your post demonstrates why it's better than beating the tar out if anyone who was accused of a crime.

Musketeer4 · 26-08-2016 03:34PM

Well to be honest, where the security and welfare of children is concerned, I think its better to be safe than rather than sorry when tackling those who could be a potential risk to them. As said, there are any amount of offenders around who have done things but it just can't be proven.
I read a study a few years ago that found that up to around approximately 9% of the population had pedophilic tendencies, even if they didn't act them out. I'd feel a lot better if they were taken off the streets as it would be a lot safer. Nowadays we have a situation where in shopping centres, if a child gets lost the security staff are not allowed to make an announcement because it basically advertises to paedophiles the fact that theres an unattended child on the premises.

El_Duderino 09 · 26-08-2016 03:38PM

Musketeer4 wrote:

Well to be honest, where the security and welfare of children is concerned, I think its better to be safe than rather than sorry when tackling those who could be a potential risk to them. As said, there are any amount of offenders around who have done things but it just can't be proven. I read a study a few years ago that found that up to around approximately 9% of the population had pedophilic tendencies, even if they didn't act them out. I'd feel a lot better if they were taken off the streets as it would be a lot safer. Nowadays we have a situation where in shopping centres, if a child gets lost the security staff are not allowed to make an announcement because it basically advertises to paedophiles the fact that theres an unattended child on the premises.

J'accuse musketeer4 of being a terrible terrible person. I suppose you have no choice but to hold your hands up and submit yourself to a savage beating now because, as you said, it's better to be safe than sorry.

Obviously this is a stupid idea.

mynamejeff · 26-08-2016 03:38PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

'paedophile suspect'

'accused of paedophilia'. I don't know if this is a mistake or if you would actually support beating people who have been accused of crimes.

Either was it's not accurate enough and it's waaay too easy to get a mob riled up and waaay too hard to explain to the mob, the difference between being 'accused' and being 'found guilty'.

Bad an all as the justice system might be, your post demonstrates why it's better than beating the tar out if anyone who was accused of a crime.

One of the problems we are lumbered with now is the endless appeals processes that the courts allow.
Then there is mitigation and excuses . evidence from mental health and medical people characters references from old pals etc etc etc

As long as some one maintains the Not Guilty mantra theres will always be some one who believes them.

Criminals deserve justice determined by their peers .

For many offences that can be violent retribution.

If thats what the people want then .......

I wonder what way Ireland would vote if a referendum to reintroduce executions for say repeated sex crimes, gangland murders or something like that ?
( Just a what if scenario)

andekwarhola · 26-08-2016 03:46PM

Whatever about in the past, vigilantism in the social media age has a much higher risk of wrong identification, even by way of trolling/malice rather than the normal 'name and share' cretins.

As pointed out though, vigilantism generally occurs in a policing vacuum. When I was growing up in the 80s, the men on the estate would occasionally hospitalize people that were *known* to be terrorising the estate and evading the police. Can't say any tears were wept there.

El_Duderino 09 · 26-08-2016 03:49PM

mynamejeff wrote:

One of the problems we are lumbered with now is the endless appeals processes that the courts allow. Then there is mitigation and excuses . evidence from mental health and medical people characters references from old pals etc etc etc

Sorry that doesn't really answer my question.
Do you think being accused is enough to go ahead and beat the person?

Seriously I just want to see a grown adult write that.

rjpf1980 · 26-08-2016 03:50PM

What if the so called scumbag is actually innocent?

What if you are on the receiving end of a beating after a false accusation?

The reason we have courts and laws and jury trial and innocence until proven guilty and reasonable doubt is because prior to the operation of courts there was a violent free for all with innocents being killed based in flimsy evidence allegations and rumour.

We don't have duels either because injured parties can sue.

Musketeer4 · 26-08-2016 03:51PM

Yes I would be in favour of it against those who are accused but not convicted provided that the general opinion amongst the locals is that he did it. He may well be guilty, but it just cannot be proven for one reason or another.

Musketeer4 · 26-08-2016 03:53PM

mynamejeff wrote: »

I wonder what way Ireland would vote if a referendum to reintroduce executions for say repeated sex crimes, gangland murders or something like that ?
( Just a what if scenario)

I'd vote for it. I think if necklacing was the punishment for paedophilia, there would be a lot less paedophiles in the country.

BrokenArrows · 26-08-2016 03:53PM

If they served an appropriate amount of time for the crime then i say let them get on with their lives.
If however they got off on some technicality or the sentence was stupidly lenient then im flexible.

Im more inclined to encourage the beatings of the gangs of young scummers that roam the streets.

seamus · 26-08-2016 03:54PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Sorry that doesn't really answer my question.
Do you think being accused is enough to go ahead and beat the person?

Seriously I just want to see a grown adult write that.

Maybe we should just pre-emptively give everyone a good hiding on their 18th birthday. Just in case. Better safe than sorry. Won't somebody please think of the children, etc.

rjpf1980 · 26-08-2016 03:54PM

andekwarhola wrote: »

Whatever about in the past, vigilantism in the social media age has a much higher risk of wrong identification, even by way of trolling/malice rather than the normal 'name and share' cretins.

As pointed out though, vigilantism generally occurs in a policing vacuum. When I was growing up in the 80s, the men on the estate would occasionally hospitalize people that were *known* to be terrorising the estate and evading the police. Can't say any tears were wept there.

When faceless vigilantes are judge jury and executioner who polices them? What authority do they answer to? Their arbitrary power is wide open to abuse. Thus is why we have the rule of law and a court system.

seamus · 26-08-2016 03:54PM

Musketeer4 wrote: »

I'd vote for it. I think if necklacing was the punishment for paedophilia, there would be a lot less paedophiles in the country.

Or a lot more murdered children.

El_Duderino 09 · 26-08-2016 03:55PM

Musketeer4 wrote:

Yes I would be in favour of it against those who are accused but not convicted provided that the general opinion amongst the locals is that he did it. He may well be guilty, but it just cannot be proven for one reason or another.

Lol.

That is all.

starshine1234 · 26-08-2016 03:56PM

A person could be a victim of a crime and be absolutely certain who the perpertrator was. The victim might genuinely feel that their story won't be believed, and that achieving justice through the law and order system is not possible.

In that case, it seems reasonable to take retribution yourself.

A person could have been mistreated by corrupt Gardai in the past. Such a person might be unwilling to report crimes. If that person is a victim of a crime can they take matters into their own hands?
After all, they would have reported the crime but the Gardai acted in corrupt ways PRIOR to the crime being committed. The police by their own actions prevented the victim from being able to report the crime.

Should the victim have to endure being a perpetual victim or is it morally acceptable for them to take matters into their own hands?

The family in Donegal who were set up on serious charges involving guns and explosives by corrupt Gardai. Is it morally ok for them to go on a mission to clear their name, like in the movies?

Too many apologists here who excuse serious failings by the Gardai.

Musketeer4 · 26-08-2016 03:56PM

BrokenArrows wrote: »

If they served an appropriate amount of time for the crime then i say let them get on with their lives.
If however they got off on some technicality or the sentence was stupidly lenient then im flexible.

Im more inclined to encourage the beatings of the gangs of young scummers that roam the streets.

For normal crimes I absolutely agree, they should be given the opportunity to rehabilitate and get on with their lives. However, I do not think sex offenders should be afforded that luxury. Anyone who abuses a child has ruined the child's life and they do not deserve it rehabilitation and to be just able to get on with their life.

davo2001 · 26-08-2016 03:57PM

biko wrote: »

I disagree with this beating, as with most beatings.

First of all he did his time..

No he didn't, unless you think it is 2018?

Taken from the article:

"where he served a 10-year sentence for kidnapping a woman in 2008."

BrokenArrows · 26-08-2016 04:02PM

rjpf1980 wrote: »

When faceless vigilantes are judge jury and executioner who polices them? What authority do they answer to? Their arbitrary power is wide open to abuse. Thus is why we have the rule of law and a court system.

They answer to anyone else who wants to be a vigilante.

VisibleGorilla · 26-08-2016 04:02PM

Musketeer4 wrote: »

For normal crimes I absolutely agree, they should be given the opportunity to rehabilitate and get on with their lives. However, I do not think sex offenders should be afforded that luxury. Anyone who abuses a child has ruined the child's life and they do not deserve it rehabilitation and to be just able to get on with their life.

Your post is so stupid it's unreal.

Do you have any experience at all within the criminal justice system or in child protection?

Do some reading on the subject, you'll see that what these people and anyone else for that matter need is exactly what you're so against, the ability to rehabilitate and move on.

You think this guy who got beaten up is now more or less likely to act out?

Musketeer4 · 26-08-2016 04:09PM

Are you for real? You're seriously suggesting that someone who abuses a child should be allowed to serve (a probably much reduced) sentence, do some therapy course and then be told "ah yeah sure that's grand now, off you go into the street"? You clearly aren't a parent if that is you honest opinion.
I think in stealing a child's innocence and future they have forfeit theirs also.

Its exactly this sofly softly approach that you allude to that the justice system has adopted with these offenders and it has no impact on deterrence. Look at the amount of repeat offenders out there - it doesn't work. I'd wager to say its a policy that emboldens - look at that situation where yer man was beaten outside the school, he had set up a ladder at the side wall of the school to leer into the yard ffs. So no, I do not believe in the rehabilitation of those who commit sexually based offences.

Now, I can accept that the problem with vigilante justice is that there can be cases where an innocent man killed as a result of a misunderstanding. One would just have to hope that the right person is got.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2478285/Innocent-man-burned-death-vigilante-neighbours-mistook-paedophile.html
Case linked is where a man in Bristol saw young fellas vandalising his flower pots and took pictures as evidence to show to the police. Neighbours see man taking pictures of minors and have him arrested for being a paedophile. Misunderstanding is sorted out and he is released. But local neighbours end up dragging him through the street, beating him unconcious, douse him in petrol and burn him in error.

mynamejeff · 26-08-2016 04:27PM

Musketeer4 wrote: »

I'd vote for it. I think if necklacing was the punishment for paedophilia, there would be a lot less paedophiles in the country.

be a lot less repeat offenders anyway

mynamejeff · 26-08-2016 04:30PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Sorry that doesn't really answer my question.
Do you think being accused is enough to go ahead and beat the person?

Seriously I just want to see a grown adult write that.

i dont believe that i even suggested that at any point

My point was that a definitive guilty verdict is very hard to get .

If the victim sees the crime then id say thats enough to p[en up a can of some sort yes

ShooterSF · 26-08-2016 04:42PM

mynamejeff wrote: »

i dont believe that i even suggested that at any point

My point was that a definitive guilty verdict is very hard to get .

If the victim sees the crime then id say thats enough to p[en up a can of some sort yes

As it should be. You're going from difficult to be found guilty to not even getting a hearing with vigilante "justice".

end of the road · 26-08-2016 04:53PM

Musketeer4 wrote: »

A perpetrator cannot be convicted unless it can be proven! Anyone will tell you that it can be exceedingly difficult to prove that someone was guilty even when everyone knows full well that they had done. Pedophiles especially go to extraordinary lengths to cover their tracks. In fact I know of a local in my home area and the dogs going the road know that he's interfered with children. He used come up to me and my when I was 12 or 13 asking me weird ****. So yes, once it is generally accepted that someone has or has the potential to abuse a child I would have no issue with local people banding together to neutralise them.

so you don't believe in innocent until proven guilty, and therefore support people behaving like thugs based on nothing, meaning they are a threat to the state?

Musketeer4 wrote: »

Well to be honest, where the security and welfare of children is concerned, I think its better to be safe than rather than sorry when tackling those who could be a potential risk to them. As said, there are any amount of offenders around who have done things but it just can't be proven.
I read a study a few years ago that found that up to around approximately 9% of the population had pedophilic tendencies, even if they didn't act them out. I'd feel a lot better if they were taken off the streets as it would be a lot safer. Nowadays we have a situation where in shopping centres, if a child gets lost the security staff are not allowed to make an announcement because it basically advertises to paedophiles the fact that theres an unattended child on the premises.

bull. better safe then sorry and the wellfare and security of children are no excuse for doing whatever the hell you like. a suspect is a suspect not a convict.
anyone who beats someone up especially when they are only accused rather then convicted is a threat to, and an enemy of the state and society and must be locked up indefinitely, just like the criminals they claim to have an issue with.

Musketeer4 wrote: »

Yes I would be in favour of it against those who are accused but not convicted provided that the general opinion amongst the locals is that he did it. He may well be guilty, but it just cannot be proven for one reason or another.

so, if a few locals decided tomorrow that they didn't like a particular individual and decided he was a paedophile, dispite not being, and they beat him up, that would be okay?

Musketeer4 wrote: »

I'd vote for it. I think if necklacing was the punishment for paedophilia, there would be a lot less paedophiles in the country.

well i'm afraid you are wrong. execution doesn't decrease paedophilia.

davo2001 wrote: »

No he didn't, unless you think it is 2018?

Taken from the article:

the law decided he did his time. i no more like it then anyone else but reality is reality.

end of the road · 26-08-2016 04:54PM

Musketeer4 wrote: »

Its exactly this sofly softly approach that you allude to that the justice system has adopted with these offenders and it has no impact on deterrence. Look at the amount of repeat offenders out there - it doesn't work. I'd wager to say its a policy that emboldens - look at that situation where yer man was beaten outside the school, he had set up a ladder at the side wall of the school to leer into the yard ffs.

they're is no deterrent to paedophilia and they're never will be. no policy is going to stop the possible reoffending of, or committal of the act of paedophilia hence a full life sentence is needed.

Musketeer4 wrote: »

Now, I can accept that the problem with vigilante justice is that there can be cases where an innocent man killed as a result of a misunderstanding. One would just have to hope that the right person is got.

or we can simply clamp down on vigilantes. if convicted they face a full life tarrif as they are a threat to the state.

Musketeer4 wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2478285/Innocent-man-burned-death-vigilante-neighbours-mistook-paedophile.html
Case linked is where a man in Bristol saw young fellas vandalising his flower pots and took pictures as evidence to show to the police. Neighbours see man taking pictures of minors and have him arrested for being a paedophile. Misunderstanding is sorted out and he is released. But local neighbours end up dragging him through the street, beating him unconcious, douse him in petrol and burn him in error.

exactly so it's important that vigilante vermin are stopped hard as this is what can happen when animals are allowed to take the law into their own hands. we need to get tough on all violent and sexual crime. vigilantes are as much of a threat to the state as any other violent criminal.

learn_more · 26-08-2016 05:00PM

Musketeer4 wrote: »

Now, I can accept that the problem with vigilante justice is that there can be cases where an innocent man killed as a result of a misunderstanding. One would just have to hope that the right person is got.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2478285/Innocent-man-burned-death-vigilante-neighbours-mistook-paedophile.html
Case linked is where a man in Bristol saw young fellas vandalising his flower pots and took pictures as evidence to show to the police. Neighbours see man taking pictures of minors and have him arrested for being a paedophile. Misunderstanding is sorted out and he is released. But local neighbours end up dragging him through the street, beating him unconcious, douse him in petrol and burn him in error.

What you are saying here is that you agree that the guy should have been murdered if he were guilty. Interesting. And following from that you think it's unfortunate that innocent people die in some case but that can't be helped...so overall it's fine ? Hmm.

I've a question for you about the perpetrators of that attack... Why would they be willing to serve a life sentence themselves for murder ie have their own lives ruined forever - just to serve justice. Isn't that what would happen whether the man was guilty of a crime or not. Seems like a rather unhinged decision to take to me.

seamus · 26-08-2016 05:07PM

learn_more wrote: »

What you are saying here is that you agree that the guy should have been murdered if he were guilty. Interesting. And following from that you think it's unfortunate that innocent people die in some case but that can't be helped...so overall it's fine ? Hmm.

Some people are of the opinion that it's OK if innocent people are hurt or killed. Provided that the majority of those punished are guilty, then a little collateral damage is OK.

They would of course change their tune very quickly when they or a member of their family become that collateral damage.

"Nah, it's OK they beat my son to death. They made a mistake, but they otherwise do great work keeping the streets clean. God bless them".

Ethics of beating the ****e outta criminals.

Comments