London Terror Attack 29/11/2019

[Branyy]

19 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

Not pointless at all. To defeat your enemy you first have to understand them and their motivation. 

 

Although it’s very easy to scream and shout and call for them to be locked up forever, all you are ultimately doing is prolonging the problem.

It is absolutely pointless to artificially create two groups with no clear definition and trying to sort your friends and enemies into those two. I believe we all should be capable of discussing the motivation without putting people into just two boxes.

 

"Locking up forever" by means of actual life sentence is not really prolonging a problem, it's a valid solution (pros and cons can be discussed).

[Obelix]

1 hour ago, Ontarian1981 said:

There are certain criminals who cannot possibly be rehabilitated

You know that for certain? I think it's incumbent on a civilised society to try and rehabilitate all people regardless of how hopeless it may be.

[Branyy]

9 minutes ago, Obelix said:

You know that for certain? I think it's incumbent on a civilised society to try and rehabilitate all people regardless of how hopeless it may be.

That might sound very noble. But we'd hit certain "technical" difficulties - how long could rehabilitation take? Years? Lifetime? How do you assess full and successful rehabilitation? Who would assess that? Who's going to take responsibility for false assessment and consequences?

[Ontarian1981]

7 minutes ago, Obelix said:

You know that for certain? I think it's incumbent on a civilised society to try and rehabilitate all people regardless of how hopeless it may be.

Two poor people found out the hard way about the attempted rehabilitation of an extreme religious zealot. It is simply not worth innocent people's lives to find out if these types of criminals can or cannot be rehabilitated. Once is more than enough in these types of crimes . No second chances to these guys is my stance, and I am not alone in my way of thinking, by a long shot.

 

[tinfoilhat]

Just now, Ontarian1981 said:

Two poor people found out the hard way about the attempted rehabilitation of an extreme religious zealot. It is simply not worth innocent people's lives to find out if these types of criminals can or cannot be rehabilitated. Once is more than enough in these types of crimes . No second chances to these guys is my stance, and I am not alone in my way of thinking, by a long shot.

 

To be fair, hitler wasn’t alone in his thinking either, that doesn’t make you right.

 

That said statistically a lot of former jihadists are rehabilitated, but they need monitoring. If you’re going to cut services who are going to do that, this could happen.

[Branyy]

1 hour ago, tinfoilhat said:

To be fair, hitler wasn’t alone in his thinking either, that doesn’t make you right.

 

That said statistically a lot of former jihadists are rehabilitated, but they need monitoring. If you’re going to cut services who are going to do that, this could happen.

Do you think Hitler needed just some rehabilitation and monitoring (if he had survived the end of WW2)?

 

Also, I don't think it's about the amount of services needed. Someone had assessed Khan and approved his release. He had access to rehabilitation. He participated on that, he attended that conference. He was monitored. Services were there for him. They failed. 

Edited December 1, 2019 by Branyy

[hobinfoot]

3 hours ago, Branyy said:

It is absolutely pointless to artificially create two groups with no clear definition and trying to sort your friends and enemies into those two. I believe we all should be capable of discussing the motivation without putting people into just two boxes.

 

"Locking up forever" by means of actual life sentence is not really prolonging a problem, it's a valid solution (pros and cons can be discussed).

Like a murderer a terrorist should receive a life sentence with a minimum sentence..

[tinfoilhat]

26 minutes ago, Branyy said:

Do you think Hitler needed just some rehabilitation and monitoring (if he had survived the end of WW2)?

 

Also, I don't think it's about the amount of services needed. Someone had assessed Khan and approved his release. He had access to rehabilitation. He participated on that, he attended that conference. He was monitored. Services were there for him. They failed. 

No, did I say he did? That said not every single nazi was put against a wall and shot, they were, effectively, rehabilitated. 

 

And yes, services did fail. That needs to be looked at, as do the parole board.  They might have made the best decision with the information they had, then again they might not have done.

[melthebell]

32 minutes ago, Branyy said:

Do you think Hitler needed just some rehabilitation and monitoring (if he had survived the end of WW2)?

 

Also, I don't think it's about the amount of services needed. Someone had assessed Khan and approved his release. He had access to rehabilitation. He participated on that, he attended that conference. He was monitored. Services were there for him. They failed. 

Think you missed my post about what services Weren't available

[Obelix]

3 hours ago, Ontarian1981 said:

Two poor people found out the hard way about the attempted rehabilitation of an extreme religious zealot. It is simply not worth innocent people's lives to find out if these types of criminals can or cannot be rehabilitated. Once is more than enough in these types of crimes . No second chances to these guys is my stance, and I am not alone in my way of thinking, by a long shot.

 

I'll ask the point again since you wont give the courtesy of answering it...  Do you know that for certain? I think it's incumbent on a civilised society to try and rehabilitate all people regardless of how hopeless it may be.