Police have the bombers

[Adrian II]

(..) jail isn't all about showing them the error of their ways, it's about punishment and deterrent as well.

It's about containing the spread of violence and cycles of revenge and retaliation in society. Punishment should not fit the crime, it should fit the needs of society and particularly public safety and the integrity of institutions. That is why the principle of 'An eye for an eye' is profoundly uncivilised.

As for deterrence: some of these detainees are prepared to commit suicide in the interest of their 'cause' and are not deterred by the death penalty, life sentences, or public flogging, hanging and quartering at all. Hence my statement that fighting crime is not the same thing as fighting criminals.

(..) some criminals don't deserve to be let back into the community, terrorists are one of them.

They certainly shouldn't be let back into society as long as they stick to their ideas and practices, and they should be kept in isolation as long as there is any danger that they go on plotting, preventing the course of justice or inciting others. But true repentance in a terrorist convict, obtained not under torture but of his own free will, is an invaluable asset in the fight for public safety.

[Ja'chyra]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that

[Adrian II]

It saddens me to see the great masters of capital Punishment--the perfecters of the art of hanging--be reduced to only giving these guys a wimpy prison sentance; and even flinching at the idea of total confinement.

So are the masters of decapitation across the Channel. But the masters of frying brains across the Big Pond are still at it, and their society is now almost crime-free.

[Ser Clegane]

One former terrorist even wrote a political theater piece about it, which proved a huge success. It would be insane to call that a belated 'reward' for his terrorist career, as some on the Right did - it was clearly a 'reward' for his newly-won insights as well as a distinct contribution to German society. He was literally making up for his mkistakes as best he could. As you said, most of these guys are young and confused, but some are also brilliant minds. If it takes them twnty years in prison to learn to put those minds to work on something better than murder and mayhem, their sentence will have served a purpose and they might become belated role models like the German guy.

Ser Clegane, please help me- what's the German fellow's name?

The one that comes to mind is Peter-Jürgen Boock who is a book author - I am not aware of any theater plays though...

[Adrian II]

The one that comes to mind is Peter-Jürgen Boock who is a book author - I am not aware of any theater plays though...

You are right, I was mixing up three different people. The first is Boock, ex-RAF and now a book author. The second is Manfred Grashof, ex-RAF and now an actor in Berlin. The third is Christian Klar, an unreconstructed terrorist and threefold killer, who saw his request to work as an intern with a German theater company denied. He never repented in the first place, so obviously the Interior Ministry will not consider resocialisation for Mr. Klar.

[scooter_the_shooter]

Sounds like you guys need a lynch mob...

[Copperhaired Berserker!]

What I think should be the punishment is this, keep the gits in there for 50 years, while on their sentence of prison they be showed suffering in places like africa, show why we should have good moral hygeine. 50 years is enough for them.

[Papewaio]

I say let them live as pig herders.

No deaths, but plenty of payback.

[Tribesman]

Uncalled for I think
Ja'chyra , since the new rules allow for the police to shoot to kill a suspect without identifying themselves and without issuing any warnings is it really that uncalled for ?

[King Ragnar]

I said it earlier in the post lynch them if the government wont do it then i will have to raise some form of mob to go and do it ourselves

[Ja'chyra]

Uncalled for I think
Ja'chyra , since the new rules allow for the police to shoot to kill a suspect without identifying themselves and without issuing any warnings is it really that uncalled for ?

You sure about that?

Link

Most police forces in the UK supply their firearms units with rules of engagement based on guidelines from the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo).

These state that they:


Must identify themselves and declare intent to fire (unless this risks serious harm).

Should aim for the biggest target (the torso) to incapacitate and for greater accuracy.

Should reassess the situation after each shot.
These guidelines were introduced in the wake of the 1983 shooting of film editor Stephen Waldorf in Kensington, west London.

Also see here:

ACPO

Oral Warning
AFOs shall identify themselves as such and shall give a clear warning of their intent to use
firearms, with sufficient time for the warnings to be observed, unless to do so:
a. would unduly place any person at a risk of death or serious harm,
or
b. it would be clearly inappropriate or pointless in the circumstances of the incident.

[Tribesman]

You sure about that?
Yes , it appears you ignored the "new" partunder Kratos .Specifically shooting in the head instead of the torso without giving any warnings or identifying themselves .
But it is OK because the police have a very good record in shooting the right "suspects" don't they

[Ja'chyra]

Have you got something to prove that?

[Templar Knight]

The guy caught in Rome said he 'didn't mean to kill'

[lancelot]

The guy caught in Rome said he 'didn't mean to kill'

Ha, thats priceless!

I have heard of the global confusion on the possible effects of explosives.

[Marcellus]

The guy caught in Rome said he 'didn't mean to kill'

Yeah I heard that too. The great thing is he then went on to say that he didn't know how he got the explosives. Quite what peaceful use he was intending to put the explosives to on the London Underground I don't know.

[Tribesman]

Have you got something to prove that?
Ask your Home Secratary or the Mets. chief , they both said it on the news yesterday.
Hey maybe they was lying .
Then again it is only a small amendment to the earlier rules that you posted , due to changes in circumstances , the fact remains that they can kill anyone without giving any warning or identifying themselves if they feel it is the right thing to do .
But they do not have a very good record on making those judgements do they

The guy caught in Rome said he 'didn't mean to kill'
So far they have released 7 different contradictory statements on what he "said" .

[Papewaio]

Ha, thats priceless!

I have heard of the global confusion on the possible effects of explosives.

Well The Nobel Prizes are payed for by explosives including the one for Peace... I think there is one of the prizes that is not.

[Ja'chyra]

Have you got something to prove that?
Ask your Home Secratary or the Mets. chief , they both said it on the news yesterday.
Hey maybe they was lying .

As I don't know them personally I can't really ask them

Then again it is only a small amendment to the earlier rules that you posted , due to changes in circumstances , the fact remains that they can kill anyone without giving any warning or identifying themselves if they feel it is the right thing to do .

No, it's quite a major change to the earlier rules.

And, as I'm sure I've said in an earlier thread, if you have the training and experience to do better maybe you should send them your suggestions on what they can do better, maybe ask them nicely to not blow anyone up, ask if they had a problem with thier dads, everyone pile on them in the hope that the bomb doesn't go off or they reach the detonator and splatter all your friends along with tens of innocent people all over the undergrounds walls.

It's easy to sit back and criticise when you haven't got the pressure of people living and dying by your decisions.