12 year old girl murdered in Liverpool City centre

ErichZann said:
Social media, drill music, pornography, disrespect for elders, casualisation of violence in media available to those too young (Squid Game for example).......are all partly to blame imo
Click to expand...

Squid Game is a 15. Netflix has parental controls. If you don't want your kids watching it, you could try and stop them, but in this day and age, it's a piece of piss to get around it.
The kind of content that's in Squid Game is nothing new either.
Not sure where pornography fits in. If you'd said the sexualisation of children by companies and social media pressures etc, I'd get it.
Influencers, body shaming etc all factors.
 


Chatty83 said:
These mostly wouldn't be reformable tbf. As I said, the laws need changing so theirs a system for highly dangerous criminals who are a danger to the public and a separate system for those who can be reformed.

Murderers, rapists, paedophiles, extremely violent criminals for the most part aren't going to reform.

People who have 194 convictions aren't going to reform.
Click to expand...
Just for consideration

en.m.wikipedia.org

John McVicar - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org
 
chrismisterx said:
Do you have the psychological studies that proves that point?

Who would decide who can or cant be reformed, when would it be decided, would there be a right of appeal for the person who was told you cant be reformed?

We have to be better than that or what's the point, we have to give each and every person who is in prison the benefit of the doubt that one day they maybe can be reformed, not saying all can, but we have to try, if we don't we will create a place when "soft criminals" would just become hardened, unless your going to have two types of prisons? some maybe are mentality ill and can never be released, but if the person in prison has nothing to work towards, what's the point?

If you have a prison where the inmates are told your beyond reform and that they are never getting out, I sure as hell wouldn't want to work there, these people would have nothing to lose, it would be one of the most dangerous places full stop, look at the death row sections of prisons to get an idea.

In Norway IIRC the max prison sentence is 25 years, but they have a system in place were the inmates can work towards reform, moving through the system from high security prisons to when felt reformed an island where their are trusted to live in small houses with knifes in the kitchen and pretty much a normal life, only after a time there do these hardened inmates get the chance of release if the powers that be feel they are reformed. It seems since the inmates are treat with humanity there is less problems in prison for the staff too*

* going by a documentary and a little bit i read online, I am no expert on the subject.

Now the USA system of treating everyone like scum and packing them in has made them some of the hardest prisons in the world, but its not solving the problems, just packing it away out of sight.
Click to expand...
I'd personally rather safeguard society than take risks on reform for rapists and paedophiles. I'm not sure there's reform for sexual deviants tbh, they feel how they feel and nothing is owing to change that and once they've crossed that line the only thing that is stopping then doing it again is self preservation.

Probably better for everyone involved including them that they never get out, don't imagine constantly being worried your gonna be found out and have a lunch squad come after you being a nice way to live anyway.

Murderers I guess it depends on the circumstances. There's probably less a danger to the public from people who have committed crimes of passion, revenge, very personal issues but there's always an element of them having that anger where we know they are capable of going past the line. I guess those ones would have to be reviewed.

Personally I'd put the safety of my loved ones way ahead of caring whether 1 in 10/20/30 plus violent criminals ould be reformed.

As for staff, then they should be given as much protection/equipment/training as possible to do their jobs properly and should be paid much better for it but that's a different argument on government spending.

Those likely to be violent on the inside are likely to be violent on the outside too, I'd know where I'd rather they be.
The Krankie Returns said:
Just for consideration

en.m.wikipedia.org

John McVicar - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
Don't know a huge amount about him though Ive watched the movie many years ago.

Was he a violent criminal. I know brandishing a gun at someone is pretty grim but we're his intentions to hurt people or just get money?

Where going down a bit of a rabbit hole but any government set out to improve the justice system, you would hope would also be looking at improving the social system outside of this as well and could hopefully cut down on money motivated crimes by shifting a focus on raising people out of poverty.
 
Last edited:
Chatty83 said:
I'd personally rather safeguard society than take risks on reform for rapists and paedophiles. I'm not sure there's reform for sexual deviants tbh, they feel how they feel and nothing is owing to change that and once they've crossed that line the only thing that is stopping then doing it again is self preservation.

Probably better for everyone involved including them that they never get out, don't imagine constantly being worried your gonna be found out and have a lunch squad come after you being a nice way to live anyway.

Murderers I guess it depends on the circumstances. There's probably less a danger to the public from people who have committed crimes of passion, revenge, very personal issues but there's always an element of them having that anger where we know they are capable of going past the line. I guess those ones would have to be reviewed.

Personally I'd put the safety of my loved ones way ahead of caring whether 1 in 10/20/30 plus violent criminals ould be reformed.

As for staff, then they should be given as much protection/equipment/training as possible to do their jobs properly and should be paid much better for it but that's a different argument on government spending.

Those likely to be violent on the inside are likely to be violent on the outside too, I'd know where I'd rather they be.

Don't know a huge amount about him though Ive watched the movie many years ago.

Was he a violent criminal. I know brandishing a gun at someone is pretty grim but we're his intentions to hurt people or just get money?

Where going down a bit of a rabbit hole but any government set out to improve the justice system, you would hope would also be looking at improving the social system outside of this as well and could hopefully cut down on money motivated crimes by shifting a focus on raising people out of poverty.
Click to expand...
I disagree, using your logic if you feel people cant ever be reformed, might as well end them, could make it public also to prove a point to the masses, but that hasn't worked throughout history has it?

Can you define the people who are more likely to be violent, is it a gene a culture thing, what is it, I suspect it is a myriad of different things, its just not black and white.

I think we all agree stopping crime before it happens is the best, so will remove that argument for now and look towards what happens when a crime is committed'

Lets say your idea of no reform comes into play, would that not foster a "nothing to lose attituded" where if the person committing the crime would be sent down forever they may think meh, best to kill the person, no witness less chance of being caught? Read online that did happen with the 3 strikes your out policy in the states sometimes.

Define which crimes means you cant be reformed? Would a 14 year old boy as in this case be able to be reformed or not, committed a terrible crime, doesn't really get much worse but can you say hand on heart after a 25 year stretch for murder with a reforming policy that child wouldn't be reformed and safe to be released, a the very least it gives him something to work towards?

What about a drink driver who has been caught a couple of times and then causes an accident, ends up with a child dead, can that person be reformed or better to lock them up throw away the key? The list could be endless, where do we build all the prisons, even petty crimes if you do it 3 times lock em up throw away the key eh?

Or we focus firstly on the causes of crime, spend heavily on that followed with proper jail terms fitting to the crime and when they are inside treat them like human beings and spend the time and effort to rehabilitate them, release them after the sentence is served and they are rehabilitated, some crimes should have an open ended sentence like "life or until rehabilitated" but all inmates should serve the time given, none of this getting out after a 3rd served.

your idea comes across a bit knee jerk, understandable its easy to say "kill them" lock em up throw away the key", but is just not sensible, just from the point of costs and space, you would have to keep the inmates who cant be reformed apart from the ones who could. also we need to take the moral high ground to teach the youth, yes if your a danger or committed a crime you will be lockup or punished, but if you reform and prove that, you can re-join society.

Now i do agree they will be some that just cant ever prove to be safe to re-join society, either due to just not wanting to do that or because of mental health reasons, mental health is easy already a law to keep them inside until well, just need the same kind of law for the none mentally ill inmate who isn't reforming, if after his time is up and he isnt deemed reformed keep him inside until he has, but we have to give them the chance.

I don't believe anyone is born evil, some people are mentally ill, sometimes is learnt due to background and upbringing, sometimes its a single moment of madness from a person who 99% of the time would have been an upstanding member of the community.

To sum it up as I am a bit rambling sorry;

fix the root causes is the most important measure, tougher sentencing with a focus on reform to rehabilitate the person to re-join society and safe guards and checks to stop the release of dangerous inmates who aren't reformed, as the reoffending rate is too high in all sections of crime.
 
ErichZann said:
Social media, drill music, pornography, disrespect for elders, casualisation of violence in media available to those too young (Squid Game for example).......are all partly to blame imo
Click to expand...
Yeah i’ve also made a link between gangster rap, grime music and this new “I dont give a fuck i’m rock hard no one messes with me I dont take shit from anyone” mindset that so many people under 30 seem to have.
 
chrismisterx said:
I disagree, using your logic if you feel people cant ever be reformed, might as well end them, could make it public also to prove a point to the masses, but that hasn't worked throughout history has it?

Can you define the people who are more likely to be violent, is it a gene a culture thing, what is it, I suspect it is a myriad of different things, its just not black and white.

I think we all agree stopping crime before it happens is the best, so will remove that argument for now and look towards what happens when a crime is committed'

Lets say your idea of no reform comes into play, would that not foster a "nothing to lose attituded" where if the person committing the crime would be sent down forever they may think meh, best to kill the person, no witness less chance of being caught? Read online that did happen with the 3 strikes your out policy in the states sometimes.

Define which crimes means you cant be reformed? Would a 14 year old boy as in this case be able to be reformed or not, committed a terrible crime, doesn't really get much worse but can you say hand on heart after a 25 year stretch for murder with a reforming policy that child wouldn't be reformed and safe to be released, a the very least it gives him something to work towards?

What about a drink driver who has been caught a couple of times and then causes an accident, ends up with a child dead, can that person be reformed or better to lock them up throw away the key? The list could be endless, where do we build all the prisons, even petty crimes if you do it 3 times lock em up throw away the key eh?

Or we focus firstly on the causes of crime, spend heavily on that followed with proper jail terms fitting to the crime and when they are inside treat them like human beings and spend the time and effort to rehabilitate them, release them after the sentence is served and they are rehabilitated, some crimes should have an open ended sentence like "life or until rehabilitated" but all inmates should serve the time given, none of this getting out after a 3rd served.

your idea comes across a bit knee jerk, understandable its easy to say "kill them" lock em up throw away the key", but is just not sensible, just from the point of costs and space, you would have to keep the inmates who cant be reformed apart from the ones who could. also we need to take the moral high ground to teach the youth, yes if your a danger or committed a crime you will be lockup or punished, but if you reform and prove that, you can re-join society.

Now i do agree they will be some that just cant ever prove to be safe to re-join society, either due to just not wanting to do that or because of mental health reasons, mental health is easy already a law to keep them inside until well, just need the same kind of law for the none mentally ill inmate who isn't reforming, if after his time is up and he isnt deemed reformed keep him inside until he has, but we have to give them the chance.

I don't believe anyone is born evil, some people are mentally ill, sometimes is learnt due to background and upbringing, sometimes its a single moment of madness from a person who 99% of the time would have been an upstanding member of the community.

To sum it up as I am a bit rambling sorry;

fix the root causes is the most important measure, tougher sentencing with a focus on reform to rehabilitate the person to re-join society and safe guards and checks to stop the release of dangerous inmates who aren't reformed, as the reoffending rate is too high in all sections of crime.
Click to expand...
Well for one, I don't really believe in Capital Punishment, simply don't think we can rule out human error which can easily in incorrect convictions so that's not really a go.

I'm also not talking about a three strike rule like the USA. People can have bad patches in their lives and ultimately come through them but there's people in their 40/50s out there with 50/100/200 plus convictions who have had plenty of chances to reform and haven't so you have to say at that point these characters are beyond reform.

On that I'd also flip the argument. You say harsher punishments haven't worked in the past yet being overly lenient hasn't either, people barely do any time these days and the crime rate hasn't really changed much at all. In fact any falling periods of dropping crime rates are probably to do with political changes looking by the years they dropped.

Reoffenders seems to stay quite a high percentage despite being a lenient country on criminals but stats can be skewered. Years from Covid dropping off seems like an anomaly though we'll find out for sure the next couple of years if they start to increase.

I'd definitely have two systems in place though, one for rehabilitation and one for the protection of society. I mean you could still run some sort of element of reform for the dangerous criminals but I'd make it a lot stricter than it is now when you can be out in 5 years or less for some cases of murder.

It's good to monitor places like Norway to see how things work but you also have to take into account that for a similar sized country we have more than 12x the population and that makes it far more difficult to police along with many other problems a higher population cause so their successes can also be harder to implement.

I would put murder, rape, Paedophilia as the most dangerous elements for reform. You probably get more reoffending in petty crime like shoplifting, possession of drugs, drink driving etc which would be in the reformable section where you could possibly have them stay at some sort of reformation clinic where they are monitored back into work, counselling, etc.

Would still run counselling and education services for the harder criminals but they would have to go above and beyond to prove they are able to reintegrate in society if they were to be freed. I honestly think if you remove crimes of passion though that people who are capable of committing those three crimes arent capable of reform and that might come mostly under mental.health issues tbf but I'd need to look into that deeper to comment.

In a nutshell we are too lenient on hard crime and maybes too strict on petty crime imo.
 
Keawyeds said:
Crime Island, but it'll never happen. I'm actually getting tired of repeating that, despite it being good idea - albeit against the Geneva convention I suspect.
A pointless war would be helpful.

You seem to miss the point that the death sentence doesn't stop these things from happening. It just stops the perpetrator from doing it again.
Even if you bump them off, their cell will be filled soon after by the next pain in society's arse.
Click to expand...

THE PROBLEM IS NOT INCARCERATION ITS THE CONDITIONS INSIDE. FOR THE AVERAGE VILLAIN ITS AKIN TO A HOLIDAY CAMP. ALL DAY TV AND CONSOLE BLACK MARKET TRADING AND DRUG ABUSE.

EVERYONE IN A SINGLE SMALL CELL. NOTHING BUT READING MATERIAL WITH ONE HOUR PER DAY EXERCISE.

NO COMMUNAL INTERACTION.

THIS WILL MAKE EVERYONE THINK TWICE.
 
aukq said:
THE PROBLEM IS NOT INCARCERATION ITS THE CONDITIONS INSIDE. FOR THE AVERAGE VILLAIN ITS AKIN TO A HOLIDAY CAMP. ALL DAY TV AND CONSOLE BLACK MARKET TRADING AND DRUG ABUSE.

EVERYONE IN A SINGLE SMALL CELL. NOTHING BUT READING MATERIAL WITH ONE HOUR PER DAY EXERCISE.

NO COMMUNAL INTERACTION.

THIS WILL MAKE EVERYONE THINK TWICE.
Click to expand...

Mate.
Use your inside voice.

You're coming off a bit...

Logon or register to see this image
 
Chatty83 said:
Well for one, I don't really believe in Capital Punishment, simply don't think we can rule out human error which can easily in incorrect convictions so that's not really a go.

I'm also not talking about a three strike rule like the USA. People can have bad patches in their lives and ultimately come through them but there's people in their 40/50s out there with 50/100/200 plus convictions who have had plenty of chances to reform and haven't so you have to say at that point these characters are beyond reform.

On that I'd also flip the argument. You say harsher punishments haven't worked in the past yet being overly lenient hasn't either, people barely do any time these days and the crime rate hasn't really changed much at all. In fact any falling periods of dropping crime rates are probably to do with political changes looking by the years they dropped.

Reoffenders seems to stay quite a high percentage despite being a lenient country on criminals but stats can be skewered. Years from Covid dropping off seems like an anomaly though we'll find out for sure the next couple of years if they start to increase.

I'd definitely have two systems in place though, one for rehabilitation and one for the protection of society. I mean you could still run some sort of element of reform for the dangerous criminals but I'd make it a lot stricter than it is now when you can be out in 5 years or less for some cases of murder.

It's good to monitor places like Norway to see how things work but you also have to take into account that for a similar sized country we have more than 12x the population and that makes it far more difficult to police along with many other problems a higher population cause so their successes can also be harder to implement.

I would put murder, rape, Paedophilia as the most dangerous elements for reform. You probably get more reoffending in petty crime like shoplifting, possession of drugs, drink driving etc which would be in the reformable section where you could possibly have them stay at some sort of reformation clinic where they are monitored back into work, counselling, etc.

Would still run counselling and education services for the harder criminals but they would have to go above and beyond to prove they are able to reintegrate in society if they were to be freed. I honestly think if you remove crimes of passion though that people who are capable of committing those three crimes arent capable of reform and that might come mostly under mental.health issues tbf but I'd need to look into that deeper to comment.

In a nutshell we are too lenient on hard crime and maybes too strict on petty crime imo.
Click to expand...
some very very good points, thank you for taking the time to discus this, very interesting seeing other points of views, its how we grow as people.

I don't think we are a million miles away either, mainly some semantics i feel ( not sure I used the right word or spelling hehe )

I do agree with your points on being too lenient, it is a problem, also the fact if your wealthy you seem to get "better justice", or pay the best in the land to get you off with it.

crimes should be dealt on a sliding scale, depending on the facts, so if your a cold blooded murder, 25 years full stop, if after the 25 years you are reformed then you get released, with the inmate working towards that goal in the system, that should be the max sentence at trial, but if your not reformed you don't get released. i dislike the whole someone gets 6 years and is out after 18 months, just sentence him for 18 months at the trial. I would give some time discount for pleading guilty mind, if you own up to doing wrong a small discount of say 10% i would agree with, shows you have made the first step to reforming.

atm i feel prisons are more breeding grounds to make petty criminals hardened, need to break the cycle, to some its even a badge of honour.

the bigger picture is how to stop it happening in the first place, giving those kids life wont bring the girl back, no matter what the punishment is i don't think the kids would have thought about it, was no thinking, just mindless violence so we have to find away to stop it happening before people get hurt and thats the million dollar question, how the hell do we do that?
 
Mackem DJ said:
A lot of scratters just think they are rock hard these days. Mindset of “No one messes with me. I’m a gangster. I’m ready to flip. i’m from the streets & don’t give a f••• i’ve got nothing to lose, Don’t fuck about with me i’ll do what I want no one tells me what to do”.

I’m really not sure where it’s come from tbh. Society in this country is breaking down.
Click to expand...
They usually walk towards you, arms bent outwards at the elbow, looking you in your eye whilst bouncing.
 
chrismisterx said:
Two wrongs don't make a right.

We need to address the root problems, prevention is better than cure. The death penalty never works, take a look at the USA for how the prison system can fail, tough over there and it has one of the biggest prison populations in the world but crime is still very high and more and more people end up going into the system. I would rather we followed the Norway model.

We all know the "bad" areas in our country, what do they have in common I wonder?
Click to expand...
Whilst I do agree that a look at USA shows that death is not the deterrent it should be having the death penalty would at least ensure, if proven guilty, that this feral scumbag does not kill again. Hopefully has a horrific accident in the short spell he will probably be held in YOI.
 
aukq said:
THE PROBLEM IS NOT INCARCERATION ITS THE CONDITIONS INSIDE. FOR THE AVERAGE VILLAIN ITS AKIN TO A HOLIDAY CAMP. ALL DAY TV AND CONSOLE BLACK MARKET TRADING AND DRUG ABUSE.

EVERYONE IN A SINGLE SMALL CELL. NOTHING BUT READING MATERIAL WITH ONE HOUR PER DAY EXERCISE.

NO COMMUNAL INTERACTION.

THIS WILL MAKE EVERYONE THINK TWICE.
Click to expand...
It really won’t. People generally have very little consideration of consequences when committing crime, especially violent crime, even when the consequences include death. Your model would more than likely produce people that are very angry about their treatment and with even less ability to negotiate violent situations safely than when they went in. Quite possibly with additional significant mental health issues that will potentially reduce their ability to contribute to society, increase their cost economically because of the likely need for NHS and social care input and also contribute to raising the potential risk they represent to society. In short, attractive though stern punishment can sometimes be psychologically, it would make things worse.
 

Back
Top