Finally a judge with the right idea...

Biggins · 20-08-2010 01:08AM

sligopark wrote: »

Agreed about their day to day payments (does the general public even know of this or the openness of the likes of Castlerea where murders have served their full terms)?

where is the physical element of our 'justice' system?

* A lot of the public don't realise that prisoners can build up quite a nice sum of money.

* "where is the physical element of our 'justice' system?" - when the physical body is incarcerated of course. Its over lengths of time alone for a start that need to be addressed.

sligopark wrote: »

Kneecapping worked

Its been reported by many a subsequent death that "NO", previous "warning" kneecapings didn't work in a lot of cases - that the deterrent didn't work. The injured culprits went forth and sinned again and met a worse fate or were chased out of the north.
Its not either a perfect form of justice then, just an action of animal violence hitting out when one can't think of a better method.

sligopark wrote: »

Right now I can't for Saudi other than what is to be heard

Everything you heard isn't necessarily so!

Doc · 20-08-2010 01:10AM

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

Mahatma Gandhi

RoundyMooney · 20-08-2010 01:12AM

Jesus Juice wrote: »

...do they just throw shit at each other in the courtroom?

Sounds pretty much like any courtroom I've ever been in.

sligopark · 20-08-2010 01:13AM

Plautus wrote: »

I suppose it is the great pity of the liberty afforded by the Common Law that those living under it sometimes don't even appreciate what they've got that was so hard fought for over centuries.

hard fought for?

Are you joking - habe you any reference where this 'common law' was hard fought for rather than being a manner of keeping things quiet?

FOSh

Plautus · 20-08-2010 01:13AM

Really! Kneecapping worked, did it. All that knee-capping stopped the dealing of drugs, the reprisal shootings, the car-burnings, the riots, the bombings: kneecapping was applied perfectly equitably and not in a sectarian or plain bloody-minded, pathological way whatsoever.

Justice is blind. It isn't blood-thirsty, it preferably shouldn't be violent except where necessary. Society should be happy when an offender is a.) rehabilitated, b.) failing this is separated from the community to keep it safe, c.) the offender provides restitution.

Society is not served when the offender is irreversibly mutilated simply so as to sate the vengeful and the angry.

@sligopark ... you might want to google 'Common Law', it's not a rhetorical flourish of mine it's er ... the system you live under. It evolved through a mixture of precedent and statute. Both bodies of law could be said to be 'hard fought for'. It's an adversarial system.

sligopark · 20-08-2010 01:18AM

Biggins wrote: »

Its been reported by many a subsequent death that "NO", previous "warning" kneecapings didn't work in a lot of cases - that the deterrent didn't work.

it did Biggins

Biggins wrote: »

Its not either a perfect form of justice then , just an action of animal violence hitting out when one can't think of a better method.

or the realisation of the lack of justice available within what was present as a policing and justice system that is becoming apparent here[/quote]

Biggins wrote: »

Everything you heard isn't necessarily so!

Perhaps in regard to Saudi law yes and perhaps with respect in regard to N. Ireland this is something you should too accept - physical punishment and deterrent of such worked very well

Sir Gallagher · 20-08-2010 01:19AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Our's is too lenient, there's is too harsh.. A happy medium would be good.

I'd agree with that.

citizen_p · 20-08-2010 01:20AM

this would jut make murderers etc... more desperate.....ie. im going to get the death penalty, might as well go out in a blaze.....

usually parylzation (?) of somone occurs by mistake,a collision in a match or like a fight, 1 guy get a unlucky punch and is parylzed, both could of been going for eachother, you intend to do harm in a fight, but nothing like that (also if it occurs from hitting somone on the ground, kicking heads etc.... its diffrent)

Sir Gallagher · 20-08-2010 01:21AM

who what when wrote: »

Well you see if i say yes to that then you will take it to mean that i agree with sharia law and all that goes with it. I dont. Many of Saudi Arabias laws are seriously fcuked up.

However i do think they have a better system as regards sentencing and yes i do believe its better than irelands. However saying that its by no means ideal, just better!

I understand what you're saying, but in the case of the SA justice system I don't think the ends justify the means.

Einhard · 20-08-2010 01:21AM

jester77 wrote: »

Sure as the good old bible says (Leviticus 24:19–21, Exodus 21:22–25 and Deuteronomy 19:21) an eye for an eye

Works brilliantly with paedophiles...

Plautus · 20-08-2010 01:21AM

Sligopark ... you're going to have to do better than 'it did too' when, prima facie, Northern Ireland a shi*hole aflame between 1971 and 1994. If that was what kneecapping gave us, then that seems to be the most dire example of a civil society history ever witnessed.

Biggins · 20-08-2010 01:22AM

sligopark wrote: »

it did Biggins

physical punishment and deterrent of such worked very well

I look forward to you backing that up with proven and statistic facts with named/linked sources.

sligopark · 20-08-2010 01:22AM

Plautus wrote: »

Really! Kneecapping worked, did it. All that knee-capping stopped the dealing of drugs, the reprisal shootings, the car-burnings, the riots, the bombings: kneecapping was applied perfectly equitably and not in a sectarian or plain bloody-minded, pathological way whatsoever.

it worked very well in areas outside of belfast and s. armagh where criminals had not infilitrated the IRA

Plautus wrote: »

@sligopark ... you might want to google 'Common Law', it's not a rhetorical flourish of mine it's er ... the system you live under. It evolved through a mixture of precedent and statute. Both bodies of law could be said to be 'hard fought for'. It's an adversarial system.

do you know exactly how breton law was usurped - are you sure it wasn't a better system of justice than this 'keep the serf quiet' common law?

Einhard · 20-08-2010 01:23AM

Deleted User wrote: »

And in the cases of paralysis, serious deformity etc. what would you think of there being a choice just for us violent animals?

Then you're no better than the animal who attacked you.

Einhard · 20-08-2010 01:24AM

who what when wrote: »

But can you at least agree that their system works insofar as it prevents/deters crime while ours does not.
And in that sense alone its a superior justice system.

If it actually deterred crimes then we wouldn't be having this conversation would we now?

Einhard · 20-08-2010 01:26AM

Deleted User wrote: »

I've never been in a fight in my life.. And that's why I'd want such harsh justice.
Thirty years later when I'm still paralyzed and have the lost the only chance at life I'll ever have, I would be more than happy knowing that the cause of my life being ruined is in the same position. I couldn't bare to think that they were enjoying life after taking mine.

Eh you do realise that there are paraplegics out there who get on with their lives, and don't feel as if they've lost "the only chance at life they'll ever have"? Seriously, quit talking like that. It would be a massive blow, couldn't imagine it myself, but in describing it the way you are, you unintentionally denigrate the many people who actually live their lives in such a condition.

sligopark · 20-08-2010 01:27AM

Biggins wrote: »

I look forward to you backing that up with proven and statistic facts with named/linked sources.

you know what you are right - all I have right now are family and friend's (inc PSNI) anecdotal reports - I will look this up for myself if nothing else to bypass any argument that might involve any argument of immgrants to N. Ireland

but have ye actually looked twd Brehon Law rather than arguing against physival impairment as a form of justice?

Plautus · 20-08-2010 01:29AM

So, if this system, apparently somewhere toward the end of the spectrum which Ireland's vastly inferior system of justice needs to migrate to, were to be implemented then who would be carrying out the state-sanctioned rapes of convicted rapists.

Any volunteers amongst our righteous cavalcade?

And that's nice sligopark. Common Law is to be rejected because of where it originated. If you step outside of the nationalist frame of thinking though and think about the powers of judicial review the judiciary arrogated itself to review decisions of government, steps toward increasing suffrage, the fight for rights like habeas corpus, privacy, freedom of expression, the increase of tolerance, the evolution of equity as a dispute resolution mechanism ... that's a rich tradition that you'd like to reject in favour of kneecapping.

I'll take the wigs, thanks. It seems like you'd want the Kangaroo court provided by the local 'Ra battalion.

Einhard · 20-08-2010 01:35AM

sligopark wrote: »

Perhaps in regard to Saudi law yes and perhaps with respect in regard to N. Ireland this is something you should too accept - physical punishment and deterrent of such worked very well

I really can't believe what I'm seeing here. Are you really holding up the judicial system of a religious fundamentalist theocracy, and the nocturnal mutilations of a bunch of bloody minded, sectarian thugs, as some form of model that we should seek to emulate? I know that AH can be reactionary at times, but this is truly gobsmacking. The system we have is certainly not perfect, but the checks and balances which exist within it, are not there to protect the criminals as so many people believe, but to protect everyone from unwarranted and arbitrary state interference. I'm certainly not in favour of throwing away rights won over centuries in order to keep some Joe Duffy listening, Daily Mail reading, knuckle dragging social atavists happy.

Biggins · 20-08-2010 01:36AM

sligopark wrote: »

you know what you are right

Cheers!

I will still await those statistics though to show your hypothesis is right, and not just spoken here-say or opinion gathered loosely from the words of a community not in touch with daily recorded court/state facts.

sligopark wrote: »

...but have ye actually looked twd Brehon Law rather than arguing against physival impairment as a form of justice?

I have no need to. As the Irish legal system has moved on from that form of system into the present day legal form it has taken, previous precedents that have been partly revoked, updated or just removed are now invalid as to the present day happenings anyway - and just as out of touch with todays human actions and emotional realities, ones probably based on Maslows hierarchy of needs more so as we now greater understand their significance to humans and their emotional needs/wants - indeed, as they are applied to todays society and people, not ones of the past.

Current Irish law is a growing progressive thing.
Looking back at now outdated laws will only serve to put us all backwards instead of continuing to update our laws with more advantageous changes - ones based on todays events - not ones of the past.
(And for the record, I have studied Irish law in depth as well as business and management laws.
So if you want to start discussing common laws, their application and torts, lets go...)

Einhard · 20-08-2010 01:38AM

sligopark wrote: »

it worked very well in areas outside of belfast and s. armagh where criminals had not infilitrated the IRA

Criminals didn't need to infiltrate the IRA. The very act of joining the IRA makes one a criminal.

do you know exactly how breton law was usurped - are you sure it wasn't a better system of justice than this 'keep the serf quiet' common law?

Are you sure you know what you're talking about?

cruiser178 · 20-08-2010 01:39AM

sligopark wrote: »

I used to feel the same way - some sort of human rights liberalism - but now having been at the sharp end of a few thing sI think not now of example but preventative justice

rightly stated - its time for 2010 preventative justice

perhaps not as such but more that they are too removed from todays society having grown up 40 years ago and lived their lives within a bubble of removal from society below their living

Would it be possible for the Irish goverement to train me solely for this job? What would they require in the way of leaving cert points?

I think many of us are forgetting the rate of certain types of crime up Norht when the country provos (rather than the city provos involved in crime) kneecapped those robbing, raping and engaging in social type crime?

Would it be possible for the Irish goverement to train me solely for this job? What would they require in the way of leaving cert points?

why would you compare crimes of up north and compare them to a legal system of a foreign land?

cruiser178 · 20-08-2010 01:41AM

^^^apoliges

Plautus · 20-08-2010 01:41AM

Indeed, under the Brehon law a wife could divorce her husband for becoming fat and he could divorce her for failing to put out. I fail to see how, just because it was indigenous, it was/is better. To propose to revive it would be a reversion to a pre-11th century system of arbitration for a pre 11th century society.

Pssst: the clue here folks, is that this might not be the 11th century.

sligopark · 20-08-2010 01:45AM

Plautus wrote: »

So, if this system, apparently somewhere toward the end of the spectrum Ireland's vastly inferior system of justice needs to migrate toward, were to be implemented then who would be carrying out the state-sanctioned rapes of convicted rapists.

never saw raping convicted rapists advocated within brehon law nor were provos doing the same

Plautus wrote: »

And that's nice sligopark. Common Law is to be rejected because of where it originated. If you step outside of the nationalist frame of thinking though and think about the powers of judicial review the judiciary arrogated itself to review decisions of government, steps toward increasing suffrage, the fight for rights like habeas corpus, privacy, freedom of expression, the increase of tolerance, the evolution of equity as a dispute resolution mechanism ... that's a rich tradition that you'd like to reject in favour of kneecapping.

Brehon law advocated womens rights, the fight for rights like habeas corpus, privacy, freedom of expression, the increase of tolerance, the evolution of equity as a dispute resolution mechanism. It may provided more toward liberalism within respect values than you would imagine.

Unforuntately although you would like to disagree kneecapping worked within the constraints of the conflict of N. Ireland and rather than ignoring that you should ask why as I have.

Plautus wrote: »

I'll take the wigs, thanks.

good for you - fortunately many like me realise these pricks have nothing to offer todays society and are trying to get to something else through discussion of successful methods of controlling criminal activity rather then peying attention to their rights over the rest of society

funny now liberalism sounds sort of ****ty to me

Biggins · 20-08-2010 01:47AM

sligopark wrote: »

...funny now liberalism sounds sort of ****ty to me

Maybe so but thats also part of the system your living under, that is allowing you greater liberties!
That might come as news to you.
Its a double edged sword.

Einhard · 20-08-2010 01:48AM

Plautus wrote: »

Indeed, under the Brehon law a wife could divorce her husband for becoming fat and he could divorce her for failing to put out. I fail to see how, just because it was indigenous, it was/is better. To propose to revive it would be a reversion to a pre-11th century system of arbitration for a pre 11th century society.

Pssst: the clue here folks, is that this might not be the 11th century.

And what's this, the Brehon Laws actually sought to diminuate the occurrence of capital and corporal punishment?? That's not something we should be emulating! We need to kill the criminals, or at least maim them! Sure I'll pull out the spinal cord myself Joe. I'm not having some 11th century bunch of laws compiled by some medieval liberal, do-gooder tell me how to run a civlised, 21st century system of justice!!

Plautus · 20-08-2010 01:48AM

You really don't know what you're talking about. Brehon law didn't afford Habeas Corpus, it didn't afford privacy, it didn't afford equity (and its many maxims), it didn't facilitate suffrage (there was no democracy, after all), there was no judicial review, there was ... little of anything of what I'm talking about

Liberalism seems ****ty to you because you're anathema to the open society.

And why reject rape as a punishment for rapists? It meets the exact parameters of the touted solution: exact physical reprisal for like injury.

Or is it merely the case that, in reality, once the proposed remedy is too repugnant even for your tastes you wouldn't want to see it.

For most of us, severing someone's spinal cord is pretty repugnant. Regardless of what they've done.

Einhard · 20-08-2010 01:51AM

sligopark wrote: »

Unforuntately although you would like to disagree kneecapping worked within the constraints of the conflict of N. Ireland and rather than ignoring that you should ask why as I have.

Who kneecaps the kneecappers though?

Seriously, they committed a crime, and should be punished. You seem a staunch supporter of retributive justice, so I'm sure you'll agree that those involved in such criminal behavior ought to have their own knees blown apart.

sligopark · 20-08-2010 01:51AM

cruiser178 wrote: »

why would you compare crimes of up north and compare them to a legal system of a foreign land?

'foreign' ??? ie 6 counties vs 26 counties??? ROLMAO

Einhard wrote: »

Criminals didn't need to infiltrate the IRA. The very act of joining the IRA makes one a criminal.

funny that you must have not lived in N.Ireland when innocent catholics were being shot on the streets for asking for equal votes and rights....

Einhard wrote: »

Are you sure you know what you're talking about?

yep

Plautus wrote: »

Pssst: the clue here folks, is that this might not be the 11th century.

ah sure thats right why integrate all of it - when there is lots of common sense stuff could be discussed rather than being dismissed out of hand and proclaiming common law which is presently failing society to be the best thing since... what exactly? who and why was common law introduced?

Finally a judge with the right idea...

Comments