Glover_elbow
Well-known member
at 100 absolutely not at that age its about vengeance not justice, i fail to see what positive outcome can be achieved,and its highly likely he isn't fit for trial.
He may have played a part in hundreds or thousands of deaths. Should he not have stepped forward himself years and years ago?at 100 absolutely not at that age its about vengeance not justice, i fail to see what positive outcome can be achieved,and its highly likely he isn't fit for trial.
Ridiculous notion. Justice needs to be served regardless.at 100 absolutely not at that age its about vengeance not justice, i fail to see what positive outcome can be achieved,and its highly likely he isn't fit for trial.
So if he was terminaly ill or in a vegative state "justice needs to be served regardless". What justice do you exactly have in mindRidiculous notion. Justice needs to be served regardless.
of course he should haveHe may have played a part in hundreds or thousands of deaths. Should he not have stepped forward himself years and years ago?
So if he was terminaly ill or in a vegative state "justice needs to be served regardless". What justice do you exactly have in mind
But how far back would you be happy to go.?Yeah coz its not like it was really bad what they did.
Just following orders and it was so long ago.
Justice, No matter how long it takes.
retirement age is what 65 he is 100 thats a huge difference no i wouldn't put anyone on trial at the age of a 100. To me its equivalent of putting a toddler on trial because its almost a certainty there will be a decline in the defendants cognitive state to understand,recollect or defend themselves at a trial. To me i couldn't commit or want to see anyone that age face personal suffering.A trial? During which evidence is presented and then a jury reaches a verdict. Couldn’t care less about his age, condition etc, utterly irrelevant.
Or do you believe there’s an age limit that applies in Rwanda, Myanmar, the Balkans etc. Get to retirement age and you are free and easy.
Zero F***ing defence. Cannot comprehend your angle at all.
So let's say Jimmy Savile was only arrested at age 100, completely compus mentis, having gone unpunished for his many, many rapes of children. You'd have him walk free, yes?retirement age is what 65 he is 100 thats a huge difference no i wouldn't put anyone on trial at the age of a 100. To me its equivalent of putting a toddler on trial because its almost a certainty there will be a decline in the defendants cognitive state to understand,recollect or defend themselves at a trial. To me i couldn't commit or want to see anyone that age face personal suffering.
F***ing hell. Think about what you are saying. Get away with the most heinous crimes because you are elderly.retirement age is what 65 he is 100 thats a huge difference no i wouldn't put anyone on trial at the age of a 100. To me its equivalent of putting a toddler on trial because its almost a certainty there will be a decline in the defendants cognitive state to understand,recollect or defend themselves at a trial. To me i couldn't commit or want to see anyone that age face personal suffering.
if he was fully compus mentis then yes he should face trial, but there are very few who are at 100 yearsSo let's say Jimmy Savile was only arrested at age 100, completely compus mentis, having gone unpunished for his many, many rapes of children. You'd have him walk free, yes?
But you've already said you wouldn't try anyone at that age?if he was fully compus mentis then yes he should face trial, but there are very few who are at 100 years
ok you have made me think again, in theory if they were compus mentis then yes, but from my experience, ive seen people of that age in care homes and 99% are extremely vulnerable and in no state to face trial.But you've already said you wouldn't try anyone at that age?
The phrase 'throw the book at him' has, to my knowledge, not been used. But yes, if a crime has been committed and the defendant is fit to stand trial, then there's no reason it shouldn't happen.Does everyone saying throw the book at him think the same for British soldiers in Northern Ireland?
Would you still in 40 or so years?
But yes, if a crime has been committed and the defendant is fit to stand trial, then there's no reason it shouldn't happen.