Jailed terrorist attacked.

[Let-Me-In]

But what you're taking about here, Let-me-in, is a change in the law (amusingly, one which pro-extreme Sharia law people would be right with you on). That's very different from accepting that these people should be subject to vigilante 'justice' inside or outside of prison (anyone remember the prisoners' kangaroo courts in the Strangeways riot?)

I am not saying that I agree with this or disagree with it. My point for discussion was the fact that he had been attacked and I could not find it in myself to condemn his attackers. This is very different from condoning it.

My other point was that I feel that this kind of retaliatory attack will become more prevalent as people become more and more angry with the governments lack of direction or control and generally being out of touch with public opinion.

My point on the paedeophiles is also a personal view but how many people here, and be honest, would continue to say that the paedeophiles should be subject to the rule of law if it was their child that had been abused?

All in all I am trying to kick off some reasoned discussion on a topic in the news so don't jump in and start berating me for being a right wing vigilante!!

[Chugnut]

I know in the US some states do offer inmates the choice of life in prison or death by gas chamber (or lethal injection.) I’d be interested in knowing what the stats are on this, and how many inmates choose to take their own lives.

I think that even with this option most would choose life, and then there is the old argument of sending 1 innocent man to their grave vs. letting 100 guilty men off.

I know - it's a hugely contentious and emotive area. I'd be interested in the stats too. Since I can't relate to taking someone else's life, I wouldn't even like to guess. Maybe the figures for injection are higher than you'd think amongst those who are prepared to die through acts of terrorism, however, since they'd be no martyrdom in suicide, perhaps not.

[Swiss Tony]

I'm afraid that I have had a scan of t’internet this morn and I cannot find a shred of information that backs up my alleged fact that in some states inmates are given the choice of live or death.

Must be an urban myth, interesting train of thought though.

[lilelvis2000]

Please read my post.

I said "that as he was planning to kill thousands or hundreds of thousands..."

I am not sure how paedeophiles, murders, gays, thieves, ASBO holders fit into this category!!!

However, paedeophiles are a different story. I would be all for castration in these circumstances.

But later on you said

however this man was attempting to kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people

The group I mentioned - are all nasty criminals - well except for ASBO holders. Just wondered if you selectively pick and choose your justice based on a whim - or colour.

I agree castration is necessary, and murders should be hung, gays - converted, theives given three strikes and out.

[Old Greg]

But later on you said


The group I mentioned - are all nasty criminals - well except for ASBO holders. Just wondered if you selectively pick and choose your justice based on a whim - or colour.

I agree castration is necessary, and murders should be hung, gays - converted, theives given three strikes and out.

Gays converted? How did gays end up in the same category as criminals and ASBO recipients?

[Let-Me-In]

But later on you said


The group I mentioned - are all nasty criminals - well except for ASBO holders. Just wondered if you selectively pick and choose your justice based on a whim - or colour.

I agree castration is necessary, and murders should be hung, gays - converted, theives given three strikes and out.

Planning \ attempting, whatever. It had nothing to do with colour or whim.

My point was that if he had no concern for human life, how can he complain when the people whos life he had no concern for have no concern for his?

Please don't bring colour into it.

[lilelvis2000]

Planning \ attempting, whatever. It had nothing to do with colour or whim.

My point was that if he had no concern for human life, how can he complain when the people whos life he had no concern for have no concern for his?

Please don't bring colour into it.

True, but then as a civilised country should we not treat him in a civil manner. Should we stoop to his level? Is this not the reason the world complains about Guantanamo?

[Let-Me-In]

True, but then as a civilised country should we not treat him in a civil manner. Should we stoop to his level? Is this not the reason the world complains about Guantanamo?

That is the whole reason for this discussion as there are differing views...

In my mind, there are arguements both ways...I just wish they wouldn't argue so loudly!!!

[BrilloPad]

True, but then as a civilised country should we not treat him in a civil manner. Should we stoop to his level? Is this not the reason the world complains about Guantanamo?

I agree. we should save boiling oil for judges and politicians.

[The Lone Gunman]

I am with Greg on this one. I think he has made the argument eloquently enough.

I would just like to add:

We believe in democracy (dont start the argument as to whether we have it or not) and democracy relies on the rule of law and justice for all.
No matter what our personal feelings we must aply the law equaly. If there is a failing then we must change the law.
We must not stoop to the levels of those who would corrupt or undermine our society.

This act, whether justified or not will serve as another rallying point for fanatics.