Bit of a heavy subject, but....

Posted by: Rasher on 03 February 2004

My wife is sitting lectures at the moment for Law, and she has been hearing about the James Bulger case. The boys that killed this poor little 2 year old, pre-meditated I might add, have been released and given new identities after winning "the right to a life" in the european court of human rights.
I know we have been here before, but what will it take to stop vigalante groups emerging to address the failure of the justice system, and is the threat of vigilante groups a more effective crime prevention method?
Example of law failure: Lord Brockett on Celebrity telling that he served 7 years for fraud, sharing a cell with a murderer who was doing 5 years.
I'm not suggesting vigalanteism is OK, I just acknowledge that the law is next to useless.

Posted on: 09 February 2004 by JohanR

quote:
I don't think human nature is fundamentally bad. In fact the majority of us could probably coexist quite happily with no government or laws whatsoever.

Unfortunately government is a necessary evil to protect the majority of decent people from a minority of evil-doers. We simply don't have sufficient checks and balances in place to ensure that

I heard this about the current state in Iraq on the radio yesterday, reported by a Norwegian aid worker who had just returned. As to how it is in a place where anarqhy rules.

The streets of Bagdad is ruled by maffia organisations, people are afraid of going out in fear of being kidnapped. Particulary people are afraid of letting there kids go out, that means they can't go to School. About 70 (seventy) people are gunned down every day, half of them dies (that amounts to something like 10000 people since the war started). The American soldiers are travelling around in their pansered vehicles and are probably not even aware of what's happening.

Yes, we want a working justice system, complete with uniformed policemens on the street, even a somewhat flawed one is better than none at all. I can even handle being fined for driving my car above the speed limits knowing that I don't have to live in todays Bagdad (or yesterdays, for that matter. Even before the war, no one ever got fined for speeding in Iraq, it was a waste of time for the police as the guy who got fined then talked to someone who talked to someone he knew at the police who dropped the fine. And, of course, then they had Saddam...)

JohanR

Posted on: 09 February 2004 by Steve Toy

I am no anarchist. I believe in law and order so that the majority of decent people are protected from the minority. In Iraq this minority is succeeding in making life hell for the majority of ordinary and otherwise decent people.

Regards,

Steve.

Posted on: 09 February 2004 by Nigel Cavendish

"I believe in law and order so that the majority of decent people are protected from the minority."

Well that does not work unless you happen to belive that most people would rape, steal and murder but for laws saying you will be subject to punishment if you are caught and convicted.

As it is the law does not prevent crime, it only defines it and carries sanctions.

As someone once said: good people don't need laws and bad people ignore them anyway"

cheers

Nigel

Posted on: 10 February 2004 by Steve Toy

quote:
Well that does not work unless you happen to belive that most people would rape, steal and murder but for laws saying you will be subject to punishment if you are caught and convicted.

I don't believe this and I agree with you.

Regards,

Steve.

Posted on: 10 February 2004 by Trevor Newall

i'm a law abiding citizen and believe laws are there to be observed.
the only time i'd deviate from that view is when it comes to over 50s volvo drivers. i'd quite happily run over all of them.

TN