Larry Murphy can roam free but women can't defend themselves?

Danniboo · 13-08-2010 01:16PM

28064212 wrote: »

No, it'll just make it much easier for the rapists and criminals to do it. You're envisioning a situation where legalising it will mean the victim has pepper spray and the attacker doesn't. That's not what will happen. Both of them will have it, and the attacker will be much better at using it. Or the attacker will have it, and the victim won't, because victims don't plan to be victims, whereas attackers do plan to attack

Unless your Mystic Meg you can't possilbly know what my visions are.

dolliemix · 13-08-2010 01:18PM

28064212 wrote: »

There's invariably a hysterical media reaction when a drunk-driver kills someone. Does that mean the laws for drink-driving should be changed on the back of that? Using media-hyped outrages to drive what laws should and shouldn't be implemented is a terrible way to run a society

Drunk driving is wrong. My friend's mother was killed by a drunk driver so I feel ver strongly about this issue but at the same time, the drunk driver does not intend to kill somebody or make anybody suffer.

I do not equate a person with intent to rape a woman repeatedly while sober and some asshXle who thinks they're above the law who gets into their car drunk.

Its a different issue.

There are no circumstances that can justify a person telling a woman to take off her clothes so he can repeatedly rape her while talking to her about his family and his children and then intend to leave the woman to die.

Why are you trying to equate them? The crime is different and I don't like the way you're trying to compare them as like is like.

I don't care if the media cause a frenzy. Anybody who gets into a car drunk and kills somebody deserves what they get. As does Larry Murphy. I cant believe people are actually concerned for him and the so called 'witch hunt'. It scares me that he is out and about. He tortured a woman physically, and that woman and her family are tortured mentally on a daily basis as a result of that. Why are there people complaining that the media or me or Danniboo are over reacting?

R P McMurphy · 13-08-2010 01:24PM

drkpower wrote: »

Two issues there:

1. Good behaviour Release/Prison Remission Scheme: I assume you are just venting becasue the guy got released after 10ish years when you feel he deserved longer. I think he deserveed longer too. But the Good behaviour Release/Prison Remission Scheme is a good thing, even for the worst offendors; you need to reward good behaviour in prison, otherwise the places will be impossible to run. Your gripe should be with the length of the sentence, not with the 'good behaviour' bit.

Instead of time off for good behaviour how about time added on for bad bahaviour

13-08-2010 01:26PM

Danniboo wrote: »

You're very naive if you believe that. I could order it now if I wanted. So what happens now then say if an attacker orders pepper spray online as obviously if they are going to rape someone they don't care about carrying an illegal spray. Then there victim doesn't carry anything because they don't want to break the law and they have absolutely no form of protection, you think that's the better?

Conveniently, you ignored the point that an attacker is much more willing and able to use it. Also, if someone is stopped and searched because, say, they were acting suspiciously outside a night-club, and pepper-spray is found on them, they can be arrested right there and then. They can't be if pepper-spray is legal.

Are you for the legalisation of guns? Why/why not?

SleepDoc · 13-08-2010 01:29PM

Danniboo wrote: »

There's a big difference between the 2 examples you've given. Larry Murphy is a monster he's murdered numerous women.

Larry Murphy was convicted of a heinous and savage crime. In my opinion the sentence he received was much too short. However statements like yours and the sensationalist media coverage, make it most unlikely that he would ever be brought to trial.

drkpower · 13-08-2010 01:29PM

R P McMurphy wrote: »

Instead of time off for good behaviour how about time added on for bad bahaviour

The prison authorities are not entitled to add on time to a sentence for bad behaviour; it isnt constitutional (due process etc..). It must occur the other way round.

Canis Lupus · 13-08-2010 01:30PM

dolliemix wrote: »

Why are there people complaining that the media or me or Danniboo are over reacting?

Because you're essentially going "rah rah rah rah" without putting any thought behind what you're saying.

It's too late in this situation for anything to be done unless you're suggesting we put him back in jail because of his potential to commit another crime because he has paid the debt asked of him as per our laws (I personally feel the sentence too short here. It's important to note I'm not defending his actions). Whilst I'm sure that would make you feel good to send him back to jail or as Danni suggested "leaving him to rot" I wouldn't want to be part of a society that did such a thing based solely on an individuals past.

Now that he has been in prison and done the time what do YOU suggest be done? You can and are free to campaign for a change in the law for future criminals but what do you suggest happens to Mr Murphy now?

13-08-2010 01:31PM

dolliemix wrote: »

Drunk driving is wrong. My friend's mother was killed by a drunk driver so I feel ver strongly about this issue but at the same time, the drunk driver does not intend to kill somebody or make anybody suffer.

I do not equate a person with intent to rape a woman repeatedly while sober and some asshXle who thinks they're above the law who gets into their car drunk.

Its a different issue.

There are no circumstances that can justify a person telling a woman to take off her clothes so he can repeatedly rape her while talking to her about his family and his children and then intend to leave the woman to die.

Why are you trying to equate them? The crime is different and I don't like the way you're trying to compare them as like is like.

I don't care if the media cause a frenzy. Anybody who gets into a car drunk and kills somebody deserves what they get. As does Larry Murphy. I cant believe people are actually concerned for him and the so called 'witch hunt'. It scares me that he is out and about. He tortured a woman physically, and that woman and her family are tortured mentally on a daily basis as a result of that. Why are there people complaining that the media or me or Danniboo are over reacting?

I am in no way trying to equate the two offences. But after a drunk-driving incident where someone is killed, there are many, many people who call for huge punishments for it, much harsher than the current ones, based on that incident. I am saying that shouldn't be the force behind the laws.

EDIT: What Canis Lupus said

dolliemix · 13-08-2010 01:33PM

28064212 wrote: »

Conveniently, you ignored the point that an attacker is much more willing and able to use it. Also, if someone is stopped and searched because, say, they were acting suspiciously outside a night-club, and pepper-spray is found on them, they can be arrested right there and then. They can't be if pepper-spray is legal.

Are you for the legalisation of guns? Why/why not?

You keep bringing in other issues to justify your point. weak argument.

Rapists/ drunk drivers ...this thread is about Larry Murphy not drunk drivers

Mace spray/ guns...this thread is asking how we feel about mace spray not guns

Please let people give their opinions without bringing in other issues, which might suggest that that the original posters are supportive of other legal decisions. It just complicates an already complicated issue.

13-08-2010 01:34PM

drkpower wrote: »

The prison authorities are not entitled to add on time to a sentence for bad behaviour; it isnt constitutional (due process etc..). It must occur the other way round.

Is there any method for prosecuting someone already in prison? For example, assault, or posession of drugs. Does it ever happen?

drkpower · 13-08-2010 01:36PM

dolliemix wrote: »

There are no circumstances that can justify a person telling a woman to take off her clothes so he can repeatedly rape her while talking to her about his family and his children and then intend to leave the woman to die.

But there are circumstances that can justify assault causing serious harm? Or false imprisonment (kidnapping)? Or drink driving causing death?

The point that you dont seem to get is that there are many heinous crimes against the person out there; unless they all justify death/life in prison, people are going to get out. You have just had a knee-jerk reaction to this case because the media have wet themsleves over it; and you have decided that this crime warrants the ultimate punishment. But you need to sit down and figure out where that leaves the rest of the awful crimes out there, and figure out if your approach is sustainable in that light.

However (as anyone visiting this thread can see in a few seconds), as soon as the media glare fades on this case, you are the type of person who is likely to have completely forgotten about this issue and moved onto something else. Like shopping. Or make-up.

drkpower · 13-08-2010 01:39PM

28064212 wrote: »

Is there any method for prosecuting someone already in prison? For example, assault, or posession of drugs. Does it ever happen?

Of course; they get prosecuted just like you or I would - evidence, court case, beyond a reasonable doubt etc....

But the remission scheme is aimed at encouraging general good behaviour that allows a prison system to function; there is plenty of bad behaviour that prisoners could engage in that is short of criminality but which would make running a prison extremely difficult.

Danniboo · 13-08-2010 01:39PM

28064212 wrote: »

Conveniently, you ignored the point that an attacker is much more willing and able to use it. Also, if someone is stopped and searched because, say, they were acting suspiciously outside a night-club, and pepper-spray is found on them, they can be arrested right there and then. They can't be if pepper-spray is legal.

Are you for the legalisation of guns? Why/why not?

Because I don't want to kill anyone, I just want to protect myself. How is an attacker much more willing to use it, do you think if someone tries to attack you the victim is going to say, Hmmm I wonder if now would be a good time to use my pepper spray? Like I said anyone who intends causing harm is gonna get a weapon regardless.

13-08-2010 01:40PM

dolliemix wrote: »

You keep bringing in other issues to justify your point. weak argument.

Rapists/ drunk drivers ...this thread is about Larry Murphy not drunk drivers

Mace spray/ guns...this thread is asking how we feel about mace spray not guns

Please let people give their opinions without bringing in other issues, which might suggest that that the original posters are supportive of other legal decisions. It just complicates an already complicated issue.

Rapists/drunk drivers - I am not bringing in drunk-driving as an issue in itself, I am comparing the hysteria after it. You appear to be advocating a legal system based on who shouts the loudest, I am pointing out the ramifications of that.

In terms of pepper spray, I am perfectly entitled to bring in guns to the argument. In Ireland, both are restricted under the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act. Pepper spray is legally classed as a firearm. If you want to legalise one, you should be capable of explaining why you should/shouldn't legalise the other

Danniboo · 13-08-2010 01:42PM

drkpower wrote: »

Of course; they get prosecuted just like you or I would - evidence, court case, beyond a reasonable doubt etc....

But the remission scheme is aimed at encouraging general good behaviour that allows a prison system to function; there is plenty of bad behaviour that prisoners could engage in that is short of criminality but which would make running a prison extremely difficult.

How can they define Larry Murphys "good behaviour"?

1. He showed no remorce

2. Didn't cooperate

3. Didn't participate in treatment

4. Had the opportunity to explain himself/apologise to his victims but didn't

5. Is it because he didn't rape/murder anyone in prison?

drkpower · 13-08-2010 01:45PM

Danniboo wrote: »

How can they define Larry Murphys "good behaviour"?

It is good conduct/behaviour while in prison - it doesnt relate to circumstances surrounding the original crime. Like you might get a gold star if you do well in school.

dolliemix · 13-08-2010 01:48PM

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Because you're essentially going "rah rah rah rah" without putting any thought behind what you're saying.

It's too late in this situation for anything to be done unless you're suggesting we put him back in jail because of his potential to commit another crime because he has paid the debt asked of him as per our laws (I personally feel the sentence too short here. It's important to note I'm not defending his actions). Whilst I'm sure that would make you feel good to send him back to jail or as Danni suggested "leaving him to rot" I wouldn't want to be part of a society that did such a thing based solely on an individuals past.

Now that he has been in prison and done the time what do YOU suggest be done? You can and are free to campaign for a change in the law for future criminals but what do you suggest happens to Mr Murphy now?

i'm not rah rah rahing anything!! Whatever that means?? Thanks for your condenscending interpretation of my views!

If he has done his time, fine. If he doesn't reoffend that is brilliant.

Read over my posts. I have never said that he should be put back in jailor he deserves to rot.

Rape is a very emotional issue so generally women will not look at it rationally. I am scared that this man is free. Thats the bottom line. There is no smoke without fire. Women like me are scared of him because he showed no remorse for his actions previously.

Why are you saying I am putting 'no thought' behind what I am saying? Why would you patronise somebody like that? Are your opinions and gut feelings more superior and better thought out than mine?

Larry Murphy is evil. I should be allowed to say that without somebody like you suggesting that I'm being irrational for saying that. At the same time you assumed that I suggested Larry Murphy should be put back in jail. I didn't say that, nor do I think it right now for the record.

I only posted on this thread as a reaction to somebody who said

'whats all the fuss about"??

Why are my thoughts being attacked and not the person who wrote this?

I find that strange!

Canis Lupus · 13-08-2010 01:48PM

Danniboo wrote: »

How can they define Larry Murphys "good behaviour"?

1. He showed no remorce

2. Didn't cooperate

3. Didn't participate in treatment

4. Had the opportunity to explain himself/apologise to his victims but didn't

5. Is it because he didn't rape/murder anyone in prison?

If he had done these things then it'd be alright then?

Danniboo · 13-08-2010 01:48PM

drkpower wrote: »

It is good conduct/behaviour while in prison - it doesnt relate to circumstances surrounding the original crime. Like you might get a gold star if you do well in school.

Right so let me get this straight I can murder who I like but once I don't act up in prison I get out early to do it again.

Danniboo · 13-08-2010 01:49PM

Canis Lupus wrote: »

If he had done these things then it'd be alright then?

I never said that, it just makes it even more of a joke on the judicial system.

13-08-2010 01:51PM

Danniboo wrote: »

Because I don't want to kill anyone, I just want to protect myself.

Then you better not use pepper spray, since it has been shown to be lethal in some cases. A gun would be much more effective for protection. There's no argument you can make that is pro-legalisation of pepper spray for defence that isn't also pro-legalisation of guns

Danniboo wrote: »

How is an attacker much more willing to use it, do you think if someone tries to attack you the victim is going to say, Hmmm I wonder if now would be a good time to use my pepper spray?

A victim isn't going to be willing to use it right up until the time they're attacked. An attacker will already have it in their hand from a long way away, the victim will never get a chance to use them

Danniboo wrote: »

Like I said anyone who intends causing harm is gonna get a weapon regardless.

And yet a vast majority of sexual assaults don't involve any weapon at all, or just involve already legal ones like knives. If it was that easy to get them, the country would be a warzone

dolliemix · 13-08-2010 01:52PM

drkpower wrote: »

But there are circumstances that can justify assault causing serious harm? Or false imprisonment (kidnapping)? Or drink driving causing death?

The point that you dont seem to get is that there are many heinous crimes against the person out there; unless they all justify death/life in prison, people are going to get out. You have just had a knee-jerk reaction to this case because the media have wet themsleves over it; and you have decided that this crime warrants the ultimate punishment. But you need to sit down and figure out where that leaves the rest of the awful crimes out there, and figure out if your approach is sustainable in that light.

However (as anyone visiting this thread can see in a few seconds), as soon as the media glare fades on this case, you are the type of person who is likely to have completely forgotten about this issue and moved onto something else. Like shopping. Or make-up.

Why are you so aggresive with me?

You have absolutely no idea how I feel about other issues.

I have a knee jerk rection to this case because I have empathy for the victim.

Danniboo · 13-08-2010 01:55PM

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Because you're essentially going "rah rah rah rah" without putting any thought behind what you're saying.

It's too late in this situation for anything to be done unless you're suggesting we put him back in jail because of his potential to commit another crime because he has paid the debt asked of him as per our laws (I personally feel the sentence too short here. It's important to note I'm not defending his actions). Whilst I'm sure that would make you feel good to send him back to jail or as Danni suggested "leaving him to rot" I wouldn't want to be part of a society that did such a thing based solely on an individuals past.

What so lets forget all about it Larrys a great guy now, he used to be a serial killer/rapist but that's all in the past. I wouldn't want to be part of a society that thinks we should forgive and forget these sort of things and think it's acceptable.

Now that he has been in prison and done the time what do YOU suggest be done? You can and are free to campaign for a change in the law for future criminals but what do you suggest happens to Mr Murphy now?

He should at least be put in some sort of institution for the mentally ill, for life.

13-08-2010 01:59PM

dolliemix wrote: »

Larry Murphy is evil. I should be allowed to say that without somebody like you suggesting that I'm being irrational for saying that. At the same time you assumed that I suggested Larry Murphy should be put back in jail. I didn't say that, nor do I think it right now for the record.

Good, that's a fair argument

dolliemix wrote: »

I only posted on this thread as a reaction to somebody who said

'whats all the fuss about"??

Why are my thoughts being attacked and not the person who wrote this?

I find that strange!

In fairness, no-one responded to him because he was an obvious troll

Danniboo wrote: »

Right so let me get this straight I can murder who I like but once I don't act up in prison I get out early to do it again.

Yes. Of course, you can also commit a non-violent crime, and once you don't act up in prison you get out early to do it again. That could be a 6-month sentence reduced to 4 months. What's your point? Are you against all early releases for good behaviour?

drkpower · 13-08-2010 02:00PM

Danniboo wrote: »

Right so let me get this straight I can murder who I like but once I don't act up in prison I get out early to do it again.

Yes.
And if you do 'act up' in prison, you serve your full sentence and then get out to do it again.

Canis Lupus · 13-08-2010 02:01PM

Danniboo wrote: »

He should at least be put in some sort of institution for the mentally ill, for life.

Like now? We should arrest him and without trial put him into a mental institution for life? Or just for future offenders that do the same as he did? What other crimes should also fall under this punishment? How much will this new form of lifelong incarceration cost us?

drkpower · 13-08-2010 02:07PM

dolliemix wrote: »

Why are you so aggresive with me?

You have absolutely no idea how I feel about other issues.

I have a knee jerk rection to this case because I have empathy for the victim.

I have empathy for little bunnny rabbits who are abused by their owners; there are two ways I could react:

1. Have a knee-jerk reaction to an individual case and say that the perpetrators should be executed/imprisoned for life.

2. Think about all of the types of crimes people commit, the effects of same, the relative severity of the crime and appropriateness of the punishment, the requirements of the justice system (punishment, rehabilitation etc..), the limits on the ability of the system to cope (ie. you cant put every criminal in jail forever) and come to a balanced view on what offence merits what punishment.

I react by engaging in 2.; you do 1 (until the next 'issue' comes up).

A Primal Nut · 13-08-2010 02:09PM

drkpower wrote: »

I know there is a big difference. What I am challenging you to do is to consider what level of criminal deserves the death penalty (or life in prison), and what level of criminal deserves less.

So Murphy deserves to die?
What about:
- a guy who rapes someone after a date where both parties are very drunk
- a guy who holds up a bank?
- a guy who beats up a pensioner?
- a guy who murders a soldier who he believes is occupying his country?
- a guy who commits financial fraud resulting in massive a €50 billion loss to the exchequer and resultant enormous unemployment and misery?

Do all of them also deserve to die? If some of them dont, why not?

Murphy planned to kill this woman - he admitted it himself. Only for the two hunters came across him he would have killed her.

Its strange - if some guy gets in a fight at night, spontaneously throws a few punches and kicks; and the other guy dies; the defendant can get life. If someone pre-meditates a murder, but the victim gets lucky in the last second; he serves 10 years and gets out.

A Primal Nut · 13-08-2010 02:14PM

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Like now? We should arrest him and without trial put him into a mental institution for life? Or just for future offenders that do the same as he did? What other crimes should also fall under this punishment? How much will this new form of lifelong incarceration cost us?

Its what happens in America and its correct where high-risk offenders are involved.

boarduser1980 · 13-08-2010 02:14PM

whippet wrote: »

any idea of which news station? as I don't believe it to be true, if it was said I am sure the rag media would be all over it !!!

i heard this on the news too that is is highly likely to re-offend

Larry Murphy can roam free but women can't defend themselves?

Comments