Lennon's murderer up for parole
Posted by: Jez Quigley on 03 October 2004
I won't sully the pages of the Naim forum by mentioning that name, but you can read the BBCs news item here.
Posted on: 09 October 2004 by BrianD
Tom -
Here you admit you are inventing meaning in my posts that does not exist. Thank you for clearing that one up.
As it happens, I believe I've stated my position quite clearly, are you suggesting I should have added a clause after 'do-gooder' to indicate I did not mean the probation service or lawyers? How peculiar that you should need such a clarification.
Obviously, the phrase 'do-gooder' has wound up a few people. I wonder why that is, it's quite a common term nowadays, isn't it? It is in such common use I thought by now the majority of people would have a grip on what it usually means. Not on the naim forum, it seems. So, can you please give me another phrase to define an idealistic, naive person who fervently believes they are doing 'good' while in fact they are doing 'bad' and by others are perceived as zealots in pursuit of their cause? Are you still thinking of lawyers and the probation service? If so, why?
Another invention, very good that you admitted it so early.
How does my opinion that not everybody can be rehabilitated mean I am advocating that we don't try to rehabilitate anybody?
What I did say is that as an alternative to capital punishment, a life sentence should mean life for certain crimes under certain circumstances regarding evidence. Now if you are choosing to argue with me that this means I'm fundamentally against rehabilitation, how have you not been arguing that point with those who support the death penalty? Or do you acknowledge that, although they'd execute someone for a crime, supporters of the death penalty can support rehabilitation of offenders? As it is entirely possible that supporters of the death penalty can also support rehabilitation of offenders, it follows it is also possible that I can support such a concept, even though I believe life should mean life.
If you bother to reply Tom, please try to stick with what I've said, not what you imagine I've said.
quote:
yet you seem to find that we are at fault rather than accepting you possibly haven't stated your case that clearly. Or maybe subconsciously you really do believe what we read into your posts
Here you admit you are inventing meaning in my posts that does not exist. Thank you for clearing that one up.
As it happens, I believe I've stated my position quite clearly, are you suggesting I should have added a clause after 'do-gooder' to indicate I did not mean the probation service or lawyers? How peculiar that you should need such a clarification.
Obviously, the phrase 'do-gooder' has wound up a few people. I wonder why that is, it's quite a common term nowadays, isn't it? It is in such common use I thought by now the majority of people would have a grip on what it usually means. Not on the naim forum, it seems. So, can you please give me another phrase to define an idealistic, naive person who fervently believes they are doing 'good' while in fact they are doing 'bad' and by others are perceived as zealots in pursuit of their cause? Are you still thinking of lawyers and the probation service? If so, why?
quote:
You seem to be implying that for certain individuals the legal system should stop trying to rehabilitate and visit everlasting retribution.
Another invention, very good that you admitted it so early.
How does my opinion that not everybody can be rehabilitated mean I am advocating that we don't try to rehabilitate anybody?
What I did say is that as an alternative to capital punishment, a life sentence should mean life for certain crimes under certain circumstances regarding evidence. Now if you are choosing to argue with me that this means I'm fundamentally against rehabilitation, how have you not been arguing that point with those who support the death penalty? Or do you acknowledge that, although they'd execute someone for a crime, supporters of the death penalty can support rehabilitation of offenders? As it is entirely possible that supporters of the death penalty can also support rehabilitation of offenders, it follows it is also possible that I can support such a concept, even though I believe life should mean life.
If you bother to reply Tom, please try to stick with what I've said, not what you imagine I've said.
Posted on: 09 October 2004 by Berlin Fritz
I didn't Honnist !
Posted on: 09 October 2004 by matthewr
BrianD said "the phrase 'do-gooder' [...] is in such common use I thought by now the majority of people would have a grip on what it usually means"
For me "do gooder" usually means someone who, say, organises Whist Drives at the Roatary Club in aid of local church restoration fund. You seem to be using it to mean naive idealist involved in the criminal justice system.
Regardless of the term you used, your original statement is flawed IMHO becuase in as much as naive idealism does exist in such professions, it is a) not that common and, by its nature related to the young inexperienced and junior b) exactly that "naive idealism" and not the sort of immoral conduct and motive implicit in your words.
Specifically your words seemed to say that lawyers try to "get people off on a technicality" becuase they wish criminals to go free not becuase it's a fundamental part of the legal system that they ensure that the accused is tried and convicted/equited properly. And that in the case of the probation service their goal is releasing "murderers, rapists and child molesters" rather than attempting to rehabilitate offenders; which is, as your rightly say, in some cases impossible.
The former exists in the sense of the classic "mob lawyer" who has devoted his career to getting, say, drug barons off and such people are clearly reprehensible. But they are a tiny fraction of the total number of defence lawyers. With regard to the latter, I have some experience of the probation service and I can tell you that not only does the attitude you imply not exist, but they are overwhleming decent, hard working people who have chosen to dedicate their lives to a very difficult, thankless, lowly paid form of public service. They deserve our support rather than crticisim in the form of ill-informed generalisation.
"If you bother to reply Tom, please try to stick with what I've said, not what you imagine I've said"
You asked Tom how he interpreted your words. So he told you and offered you the option that maybe you had just not stated what you beleived very clearly. And instead of clarifying what you meant, you start implying Tom is deliberately misinterpreting your words.
As both Tom and I drew similar conclusions from your original statement (and I still do reading it again) you might like to think that perhaps you didn't really say what you meant.
Matthew
For me "do gooder" usually means someone who, say, organises Whist Drives at the Roatary Club in aid of local church restoration fund. You seem to be using it to mean naive idealist involved in the criminal justice system.
Regardless of the term you used, your original statement is flawed IMHO becuase in as much as naive idealism does exist in such professions, it is a) not that common and, by its nature related to the young inexperienced and junior b) exactly that "naive idealism" and not the sort of immoral conduct and motive implicit in your words.
Specifically your words seemed to say that lawyers try to "get people off on a technicality" becuase they wish criminals to go free not becuase it's a fundamental part of the legal system that they ensure that the accused is tried and convicted/equited properly. And that in the case of the probation service their goal is releasing "murderers, rapists and child molesters" rather than attempting to rehabilitate offenders; which is, as your rightly say, in some cases impossible.
The former exists in the sense of the classic "mob lawyer" who has devoted his career to getting, say, drug barons off and such people are clearly reprehensible. But they are a tiny fraction of the total number of defence lawyers. With regard to the latter, I have some experience of the probation service and I can tell you that not only does the attitude you imply not exist, but they are overwhleming decent, hard working people who have chosen to dedicate their lives to a very difficult, thankless, lowly paid form of public service. They deserve our support rather than crticisim in the form of ill-informed generalisation.
"If you bother to reply Tom, please try to stick with what I've said, not what you imagine I've said"
You asked Tom how he interpreted your words. So he told you and offered you the option that maybe you had just not stated what you beleived very clearly. And instead of clarifying what you meant, you start implying Tom is deliberately misinterpreting your words.
As both Tom and I drew similar conclusions from your original statement (and I still do reading it again) you might like to think that perhaps you didn't really say what you meant.
Matthew
Posted on: 09 October 2004 by Berlin Fritz
And then the Band Played On.
Posted on: 09 October 2004 by BrianD
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Alves:
There's the rub. How can I when the words are so open to misinterpretation.
Right. So you reckon that when I said....
quote:
I'm speaking here of someone who has the fundamental belief that EVERYBODY can be rehabilitated, so they spend their time working toward the release of murderers, rapists and child molesters, when it is clear by the re-offending rate that everybody can't be rehabilitated at all.
...that what I really said was.. "The state should make no attempt at rehabilitation of offenders". Can you please explain to me how my actual words can be open to such an interpretation?
quote:
But it's probably pointless even saying this as you are convinced you are perfect and that the rest of us are idiots for failing to understand you.
Tut tut.
It is my opinion that you did understand me, you just strangely added bits that I assume you wanted me to have said and commented on those, effectively replying to yourself. I don't know why you would do that.
quote:
FWIW I do not believe in a capital punishment. To me life is sacred and taking life is murder and the State shouldn't stoop to the level of the miscreant. I do believe that rehabilitation should continue even if the goal is unachievable.
On the other hand I also believe long sentences should apply to those who are a danger to society but I'm not equipped to say who those are so I leave that to the "experts".
I do not expect everyone to agree with all of that and I realise that there are situations when I would be hard pressed to stick to my ideals. Life isn't that easy.
It would seem our only disagreement here is that I would like to see capital punishment for paid murderers caught in the act. Other than that I don't particularly disagree with much of what you say, so what is your problem with what I've said, Tom?
Posted on: 09 October 2004 by BrianD
Matthew
Why do you have to spoil it when you were nearly right? Had you stopped after 'idealist' you would have had it. I did not mention the criminal justice system. Do you believe the only people who can lobby for the release of offenders, shorter prison sentences etc are part of the criminal justice system?
BTW If you look up the term do-gooder, you will find my definition is correct as a naive, idealist, I don't know where your strange definition came from.
Anyway, my words are what they are, I did not mention lawyers or the probation service, you decided that I was describing that group of people, obviously because you find something of the do-gooder mentality in them, whereas I do not.
I note in your latest post you continue to refer to this as though it is a fact when you said.......
How many times do I have to say I did not mention lawyers. Please show me where I did, not where you want me to have mentioned lawyers.
quote:
You seem to be using it to mean naive idealist involved in the criminal justice system.
Why do you have to spoil it when you were nearly right? Had you stopped after 'idealist' you would have had it. I did not mention the criminal justice system. Do you believe the only people who can lobby for the release of offenders, shorter prison sentences etc are part of the criminal justice system?
BTW If you look up the term do-gooder, you will find my definition is correct as a naive, idealist, I don't know where your strange definition came from.
quote:
As both Tom and I drew similar conclusions from your original statement (and I still do reading it again) you might like to think that perhaps you didn't really say what you meant.
Anyway, my words are what they are, I did not mention lawyers or the probation service, you decided that I was describing that group of people, obviously because you find something of the do-gooder mentality in them, whereas I do not.
I note in your latest post you continue to refer to this as though it is a fact when you said.......
quote:
Specifically your words seemed to say that lawyers try to
How many times do I have to say I did not mention lawyers. Please show me where I did, not where you want me to have mentioned lawyers.
Posted on: 09 October 2004 by matthewr
"Why do you have to spoil it when you were nearly right?"
Who knows? Why are your answers to myself and Tom full of this sort of juvenile sniping?
"obviously because you find something of the do-gooder mentality in them, whereas I do not"
Well obviously I don't becuase I specifically said so. You implied they did (whether you like it or not) and when invited to clairfy started with this sort of thing.
Anyway, this is getting silly. Obviously you have been interpreted in a way you did not intend so why not just say what you meant?
Matthew
Who knows? Why are your answers to myself and Tom full of this sort of juvenile sniping?
"obviously because you find something of the do-gooder mentality in them, whereas I do not"
Well obviously I don't becuase I specifically said so. You implied they did (whether you like it or not) and when invited to clairfy started with this sort of thing.
Anyway, this is getting silly. Obviously you have been interpreted in a way you did not intend so why not just say what you meant?
Matthew
Posted on: 09 October 2004 by Berlin Fritz
Our Matt passing the self-righeous buck once again, when he himself is actually responsible for an incredible number of very long sentences !
G.G.v.Sothisischristmas
Obvious innit Tom ?
N.B. I re-met my old ZDF Canadan explorer/filum maker again last night, he didn't get eaten by bears afterall, he's got fuckin fat though, helicopter must've needed extra fuel ?
G.G.v.Sothisischristmas
Obvious innit Tom ?
N.B. I re-met my old ZDF Canadan explorer/filum maker again last night, he didn't get eaten by bears afterall, he's got fuckin fat though, helicopter must've needed extra fuel ?
Posted on: 09 October 2004 by BrianD
quote:
so why not just say what you meant?
I did say what I meant. The problem has been caused by your own juvenile willingness to twist what was obvious.
Posted on: 09 October 2004 by matthewr
You didn't quite catch that edit in time Brian, but suffice it to say that I give up.
Matthew
Matthew
Posted on: 09 October 2004 by BrianD
Matthew
A few points....
Yes, I edited my post soon after making it, but I actually can't remember what I edited out.
In any event, I doubt I'm alone in sometimes responding too quickly to a post, I see nothing wrong with taking a step back when something has been written in haste and modifying it.
The reason you give up Matthew is because it is plain that you have no answers to how you managed to misinterpret my post in the manner you did without admitting it was an intentional attempt at provocation on your part.
Why do you attempt to provoke me every time I post on this forum, Matthew? It really is very childish and nobody else does it.
A few points....
Yes, I edited my post soon after making it, but I actually can't remember what I edited out.
In any event, I doubt I'm alone in sometimes responding too quickly to a post, I see nothing wrong with taking a step back when something has been written in haste and modifying it.
The reason you give up Matthew is because it is plain that you have no answers to how you managed to misinterpret my post in the manner you did without admitting it was an intentional attempt at provocation on your part.
Why do you attempt to provoke me every time I post on this forum, Matthew? It really is very childish and nobody else does it.
Posted on: 09 October 2004 by BrianD
Would anybody care to take a stab at offering their views on the events in Nottingham last night?
When caught, what should happen to the people who carried out this indiscriminate attack on these young girls?
Can the type of person who has it in them to do this kind of thing be rehabilitated?
If there was a death penalty, or a life sentence where life means life, should it be enforced only against the person who pulled the trigger, or the driver of the vehicle as well, assuming there was more than one person in the car?
When caught, what should happen to the people who carried out this indiscriminate attack on these young girls?
Can the type of person who has it in them to do this kind of thing be rehabilitated?
If there was a death penalty, or a life sentence where life means life, should it be enforced only against the person who pulled the trigger, or the driver of the vehicle as well, assuming there was more than one person in the car?
Posted on: 09 October 2004 by matthewr
Brian,
"The reason you give up Matthew is because it is plain that you have no answers to how you managed to misinterpret my post in the manner you did"
No the reason I gave up is because I have no idea what your post meant because you have said the most obvious interpretation is not what you meant and yet you are unwilling to provide an explanation depsite repeated requests.
"without admitting it was an intentional attempt at provocation on your part"
It was nothing of the sort.
Matthew
"The reason you give up Matthew is because it is plain that you have no answers to how you managed to misinterpret my post in the manner you did"
No the reason I gave up is because I have no idea what your post meant because you have said the most obvious interpretation is not what you meant and yet you are unwilling to provide an explanation depsite repeated requests.
"without admitting it was an intentional attempt at provocation on your part"
It was nothing of the sort.
Matthew
Posted on: 09 October 2004 by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Alves:
FWIW I do not believe in a capital punishment. To me life is sacred and taking life is murder and the State shouldn't stoop to the level of the miscreant. I do believe that rehabilitation should continue even if the goal is unachievable.
On the otherhand I also believe long sentences should apply to those who are a danger to society but I'm not equipped to say who those are so I leave that to the "experts".
I do not expect everyone to agree with all of that and I realise that there are situations when I would be hard pressed to stick to my ideals. Life isn't that easy.
Tom
Actively enjoying it all
Not that many years ago I used to support capital punishment but my views changed: -
First - the burden of absolute proof of guilt
Second - questioning in my own mind is it right to take a life as retribution and
Third - deterrence, the concept of a life term one would hope would be sufficient to dissuade potential wrong doers.
Sadly, from my view point, the current justice system here is such that you cannot rely upon the third point above. Sentences are way to lenient (with a few high profile exceptions) in my view.
As for the "experts" they seem to get it wrong far too often.
Mike
[This message was edited by MichaelC on Sat 09 October 2004 at 21:32.]
Posted on: 09 October 2004 by long-time-dead
quote:
Originally posted by BrianD:
Would anybody care to take a stab at offering their views on the events in Nottingham last night?
When caught, what should happen to the people who carried out this indiscriminate attack on these young girls?
I'll bite :
Lock them up forever. They killed someone using an un-licenced, illegal weapon (a weapon of destruction ?)
At least it will be a start.
Sooner proper law is re-established here, the better.
The Law IS an ass in Britain.
Posted on: 09 October 2004 by long-time-dead
quote:
Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:
.....that lawyers try to "get people off on a technicality" becuase they wish criminals to go free not becuase it's a fundamental part of the legal system that they ensure that the accused is tried and convicted/equited properly. And that in the case of the probation service their goal is releasing "murderers, rapists and child molesters" rather than attempting to rehabilitate offenders; which is, as your rightly say, in some cases impossible.
The former exists in the sense of the classic "mob lawyer" who has devoted his career to getting, say, drug barons off and such people are clearly reprehensible. But they are a tiny fraction of the total number of defence lawyers........
Matthew
.....but only a tiny fraction of society are rotten to the core. And they will pay fortunes from their illegal, ill-gotten gains to secure their freedom.
In Glasgow, if you are a high-line criminal or totally and utterly guilty - there really only is one legal firm you should go to. I totally refuse to name them but anyone in the West of Scotland will know EXACTLY who I mean.
I am sure Glasgow is not alone.......
The legal system sucks. That is maybe also a true statement.
Posted on: 09 October 2004 by Deane F
It looks very much like a series of very badly written short essays is a poor way to either make an inquiry into truth or to have a conversation....
I am enjoying the forum.
Deane
I am enjoying the forum.
Deane
Posted on: 09 October 2004 by matthewr
Tom said "consider the question he has raised about Nottingham"
Ok.
"When caught, what should happen to the people who carried out this indiscriminate attack on these young girls?"
They should be charged and tried and if convicted sentenced appropriately by a judge.
"Can the type of person who has it in them to do this kind of thing be rehabilitated?"
Well obviously the answer to that is yes. Whether it's likely is another question. As is what rehabilitation means in practice given that a conviction for such a crime is likely to attract a minimum tariff of 25 years. And then there is the fact that we know nothing of the persons or circumstances involved.
"If there was a death penalty, or a life sentence where life means life, should it be enforced only against the person who pulled the trigger, or the driver of the vehicle as well"
What is really being asked here is (presumably) whether driving the car is considered murder or merely aiding and abetting. My hunch would be the latter and they would probably get, say, 10 to 15 years but IANAL.
DeaneF said "It looks very much like a series of very badly written short essays is a poor way to either make an inquiry into truth or to have a conversation.
This is an internet discussion about capital punishment. 99% of all such discussion consist of the two camps restating the tradtional arguments for and against with the occasional distraction of someone chucking in some philosophical musings on the nature of justice (or somesuch) in the hackneyed style of the Sociology undergraduate.
After a few days of this there will be a fight and one side will call the other a "bunch of fucking Nazis" at which point the Godwin's Law is invoked and the argument is over.
Matthew
Ok.
"When caught, what should happen to the people who carried out this indiscriminate attack on these young girls?"
They should be charged and tried and if convicted sentenced appropriately by a judge.
"Can the type of person who has it in them to do this kind of thing be rehabilitated?"
Well obviously the answer to that is yes. Whether it's likely is another question. As is what rehabilitation means in practice given that a conviction for such a crime is likely to attract a minimum tariff of 25 years. And then there is the fact that we know nothing of the persons or circumstances involved.
"If there was a death penalty, or a life sentence where life means life, should it be enforced only against the person who pulled the trigger, or the driver of the vehicle as well"
What is really being asked here is (presumably) whether driving the car is considered murder or merely aiding and abetting. My hunch would be the latter and they would probably get, say, 10 to 15 years but IANAL.
DeaneF said "It looks very much like a series of very badly written short essays is a poor way to either make an inquiry into truth or to have a conversation.
This is an internet discussion about capital punishment. 99% of all such discussion consist of the two camps restating the tradtional arguments for and against with the occasional distraction of someone chucking in some philosophical musings on the nature of justice (or somesuch) in the hackneyed style of the Sociology undergraduate.
After a few days of this there will be a fight and one side will call the other a "bunch of fucking Nazis" at which point the Godwin's Law is invoked and the argument is over.
Matthew
Posted on: 10 October 2004 by BrianD
quote:
No the reason I gave up is because I have no idea what your post meant because you have said the most obvious interpretation is not what you meant and yet you are unwilling to provide an explanation depsite repeated requests.
LMFAOPosted on: 10 October 2004 by BrianD
I said......
"If there was a death penalty, or a life sentence where life means life, should it be enforced only against the person who pulled the trigger, or the driver of the vehicle as well"
Matthew said......
Do you really need to be so childish, Matthew?
Since use of 'presumably' means there was yet again some doubt in your mind about the meaning of my question, can you please tell me what else I may have been saying in that question?
Whether the question was not worthy of your consideration, or that of others on this forum, is not the issue.
"If there was a death penalty, or a life sentence where life means life, should it be enforced only against the person who pulled the trigger, or the driver of the vehicle as well"
Matthew said......
quote:
What is really being asked here is (presumably)
Do you really need to be so childish, Matthew?
Since use of 'presumably' means there was yet again some doubt in your mind about the meaning of my question, can you please tell me what else I may have been saying in that question?
Whether the question was not worthy of your consideration, or that of others on this forum, is not the issue.
Posted on: 10 October 2004 by BrianD
quote:
Brian obviously will not except we genuinely misinterpreted his posts and can not except that blame might lie with him.
Tom
I'm repeating myself, but you refuse to answer the question.
How does the blame lie with me when I said .....
quote:
"I'm speaking here of someone who has the fundamental belief that EVERYBODY can be rehabilitated, so they spend their time working toward the release of murderers, rapists and child molesters, when it is clear by the re-offending rate that everybody can't be rehabilitated at all."
....but you thought I meant something like,
quote:
"The state should make no attempt at rehabilitation of offenders".
Please tell me where I'm going wrong?
It's obvious I have the lowest intelligence level on this forum compared to the rest of you, I clearly don't have the ability to write as well as you and many others, but that doesn't mean I should be disallowed from posting here, or does it in your opinion?
When it comes to acceptance of genuine misinterpretation of my comment or not, let me just tell you something. I started posting on this forum in summer 1998, I had no problems with anybody, even Mr Robsinson until the infamous Afghan thread in which I was somehow accused of being a woman murderer and baby murderer, this accusation made because I would not state I was against retribution being taken against those who destroyed the twin towers. Since then I haven't posted very often on this forum, which is a shame because I used to like it here. However, what is obvious to me that won't be obvious to you, is that whenever I have posted in the last 3 years, up pops Matthew to once again misinterpet something I've posted because I haven't explained myself to his 100% satisfaction. Seeing someone repeatedly post implying I've said something I haven't said or meant to say becomes quite tiresome and I find it especially childish.
As I say, I am obviously not of the same intelligence level as many of you on this forum, but I haven't suddenly become even dumber than I was between summer 1998 and 2001, when nobody at all appeared to have any problems understanding my posts.
I hardly know now why I bother with this forum, it seems a total waste of my time because all that ever happens is this sort of shite.
Anyway, I am more than happy to meet up with any of you at the Bristol Show next Feb. When you get your round in I'll ask for a pint of Guinness, and I won't expect to receive a pint of lager.
Note: Edited at least 5 times
[This message was edited by BrianD on Sun 10 October 2004 at 10:34.]