Lucy Viner-Mood & Lois Gibson Tortured Georgia Fenn for Sleeping with Ex-Boyfriend

• totally steven im sure she wont forget her ordeal lucky she has all that money from all the stories she is selling to papers, mags and anyone that will listen! not the actions of someone wanting to forget eh!always makes me sad when i hear about these ordeals then see their story time and time again splashed all over the place!

• The Brits should be ashamed of their legal system, that girl will never and I mean never be the same.

• Boy would I love to invite them here for trial. The britts justice system is just to soft on crime. These two are sick and demented.

• All this over a BELIEG she had fooled around with an EX-boyfriend?? No facts and not in a relationship either. Not that it would be an excuse anyway. That is some crazy crap. Like something out of "Schindler's List". Those women are dangerous in the extreme and should be locked away forever.

• Okay... after reading all these stories about justice in the UK Im starting to wonder exactly what crime it is you have to commit to get a deserving sentence. I mean if murder and torture dont at least rope you life what the fuck do you have to do? Is it like the only crime that gets justly punished is raping the queen? We all know that aint gonna happen...bleh. Theyre as ridiculous as us.

• whew..I was gonna comment but nevermind

• Well this wouldn't have happened if she never left the kitchen where she belongs, dumb bitch should have been cookin.

• what cw said!

• Officer Pat-you are a gentleman and a scholar.

• JJ, cars kill a lot of people too. So do cigarettes (without a single practical benefit, I might add). Wanna ban those things too? I fully encourage responsible gun ownership. If you own guns, buy a safe like I did. It offers quick access to me and is all but uncrackable to anyone else. Both my handguns are in that safe, and once I buy more weapons that don't fit, the ammo will be in the safe. And take a class! Learn how to shoot, know what you're doing with that weapon. Learn how to be safe, and what not to do. Responsible gun ownership is the right thing to do, but I will NEVER ask for the government to step in on this, or call for a ban of guns just because some people aren't as smart and get themselves killed. Freedom over safety, forever.

• Nor mine. Accidents happen all the time, and children who get a hold of loose loaded weapons are a risk for those who do not put the weapon on their person at all times.

• that doesn't change my mind-

• The facts about guns in the home: http://life.familyeducation.com/school-safety-month/violence/29712.html "Kids access guns easily because there's at least one gun in 40 percent of American homes. 30 to 40 percent of those guns are left loaded and unlocked. Roughly 80 percent of school shootings have occurred when kids access their parents' or relatives' guns." And this information is a bit outdated but has a good point: http://www.ncgv.org/facts "While firearms are at times used by private citizens to kill criminals or stop crimes, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention reports that the most common scenario of gun use in America in 2001, the most recent final data available, are suicide (16,869), homicide (11,617) or fatal, unintentional injury (802). Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 22 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than to kill an assailant in self-defense. (Kellerman, Journal, Trauma, 1998)"

• You're damned right alexa-

• But jj, what you suggest is doing nothing to successfully defend yourself. That's not acceptable. Fearing all the what-ifs such to become paralyzed is what criminals count on. Responsible 2nd Amendment exercise and enjoyment is what we are all entitled to. If more criminals faced armed self-defense, routinely, they would find something else to do.

• How many stories have we read about kids getting a hold of their parents guns and killing another person? These stories speak for themselves that guns in the home are dangerous. Brooke talks about having 10 guns to protect herself and her daughter. I suppose to each her own, but I sure do hope that her daughter or one of her friends do not find one of these guns and accidentaly kill someone. I know of a 2 year old who shot his baby sister in the crib after finding his parents gun. Also, what if a robber finds your gun when you are not home and kills you when you get back? Your guns will not save you then, unless you can take it away from the robber.

• What's happened to the Aussie crime rates, Russell?

• @RUSSEL I think you may find this interesting, it's relatively older but still makes a good example of how statistics are sometimes unreliable due to context. http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

• {*ponders if I'm supposed to use the Batphone to summon the chivalrous Simon to my aid when I need a man to intercede because I must be forced to wait until the danger is against my skin and be forced to not defend myself, I must leave it up to.... the man? I guess he hasn't noticed how rare such chivalry is and how it's plain impossible for a man to be nearby 24/7. But why do I have to have it done that way when it continues to leave women and children vulnerable..... I am denied the same protections of the accused in order to satisfy the men clubbing up to protect other men... alrighty then... cleans gun*}

• Simon, well stated..and I respectfully agree to disagree. It's good that you would put yourself in immediate physical danger to assist someone being downtrodden by tyrannical bullies. When you said "it's not a choice, its part of who I am", maybe you're right. Perhaps its inherent in your nature to instinctually do what you feel to be the right thing. People like you, while opposing my own views, add a necessary balance in society I think...a balance much needed to keep One side from domineering the other, and producing all out Chaos. SO thanks, and Good day.

• Pete, about your stement "I think we'd see our homicide rate drop by 75 percent, simply because most murderers are chickenshit and would never be able to do it toe-to-toe. What does thou think, fairest readers?" Just check out what's happened to the crime rates in Australia since they enected their tough gun control policies.

• Officer Pat: People die here because their insurance sucks. They have insurance and it's useless. I'll offer more on that tomorrow, if this discussion is still going, but I'm going home now. Have a good day everyone!

• @ St dismas, Although I.have reduced respect for those who implement the law as we discussed above, I have a lot of respect for the law itself. I don't advocate action outside of it, even for repeat offenders. If the law is an ass, and it can be, then the law should be changed - and rather than sit idly by, those concerned should (legally) act to change the law. If their proposed changes are better, a just society will enact them. @Alexa Kim I was careful to include the word 'organised' above. I have no time for an imposed power structure based on fear of consequences, but any individuals beliefs are of course to be respected. In my opinion it is your words and deeds that define your character in this life, not your attendance at some weekly ritual. Ehyeh Asher ehyeh. I never promised to be more than a man. I don't see how I could. Indeed, these days I'm an unlikely target, I'm 6'6", in shape, and my stride and gaze has the assurance and confidence of a 2nd-Dan in ju-jitsu - you can learn to fight just like you can learn that E = mc^2, it turns out. I grew up as a smart-ass kid in a rough neighborhood, with all that entails. Having said that, I've put myself at risk to aid others several times before, and (despite the protests of my wife) I'd do it again - it's not a choice, you understand, it's part of who I am. I've been the kid who was bullied for being different, I know what it was like. It certainly wasn't "comfortable". So I think, actually, that *despite* knowing this, I choose to believe in the principle I referenced at the start. It is better that a guilty man go free than an innocent man be punished. If a woman or child (or a man for that matter) is being harmed, then *this* is the point for those "idly sitting by" to get involved and render aid. I suspect, however, that we will have to agree to disagree on this one, and each go on with our lives in our own way. Peace, and out. Simon

• First off, Simon, let me clear one thing up. I fully believe in charity and helping the poor. However, I believe that is something to be done on your own accord and not when simply forced by the government. It's my money and I choose how to spend it; you will meet few people more willing to help the needy than me, and you will also find few people more resistant to government thievery for the same purpose. Charity is my perogative. Not to mention, government programs against poverty are an utter failure. In 2007, it would have taken $148 billion to eliminate poverty entirely. That is, seek out every family living below the poverty line and give them as much money as needed to reach that line, and you'd have spent the above amount. But how much did we spend? $550 billion. Umm, we gave almost four times the needed amount and poverty's still here? Wow. But I digress. You talk about rescission but I already handled that. The uninsured number is a myth. Most of the uninsured are either a) not Americans, b) eligible for benefits but failed to seize the opportunity or c) rich enough to buy it but choose not to. The number of people who simply slip through the cracks is minimal. Healthcare is a privilege, not a right. Absolutely. And healthcare providers are businesses just as much as any other organization that offers a product to the populace. There are other areas that provide vital goods, but we don't make big deals out of them. We can make laws regulating ethics to make sure the people don't get ripped off, but the insurance companies must be freely allowed to make a profit off of their specialty. And again, I am fully confident that competition is the key to keeping prices sensible. Lastly, people should think something of going to the doctor. And if they have to pay for their own visits, they will be more hesitant to go. You shouldn't be going to the doctor because of a cough or a sore toe or whatever. That only crowds up the waiting lines and hurts people who really need assistance. Going to the doctor should be seen as the last resort. I have a feeling we'll disagree forever, Simon. We come from opposite ends of the spectrum. Oh well, the debate is interesting regardless.

• @Simon, Good afternoon! I am no fan of organized religion either but I do believe in God. The eye for an eye concept when that literally meant you lose an eye for damaging my eye was simple enough to understand but rather messy. Now, fines and incarcerations spare the splatter. Be that as it may, for the worst of worst crimes, excision of the cancer responsible for it is the best course of action. Well, then, I'm sorry to say, you are, after all, just a man. Unwilling to step to this side of the battle, to help turn the tide of rampant crime against women and children, even when the women and children are no different than your own mother or wife or niece or godson. It is easy for you to consider the tolerance of a guilty man in your midst because you know he will rarely choose you as a victim. How comfortable for you. Good day.

• Simon, your views on the persecution of those wrongfully accused is noted, and understood. Though I'm curious now as to your views on the Repeat Offenders out there who are Obviously guilty, show repeated acts of anti-social behavior towards the innocent, yet constantly slip through the cracks of the legal system? Do you think it's acceptable for good people who wish to see their children and loved ones live securely sit idly by doing nothing?, As monsters prey upon their young like jackals. In many cases there is so much evidence damning them that any notions of wrongful persecution is ridiculous. (especially in cases involving repeat offenders.) Even those sentenced to death are a burden on the economy because of the countless appeals they get.(as was noted by Officer Pat previously.) SO basically you have Animals who don't deserve the label of HUMAN BEING because they show no other qualities human aside from appearance, who are determined UNFIT to live within civilized society, constantly repeating a behavior that harms countless others. (and often sets off a chain reaction which causes former victims to become future offenders.) TO allow them life within the cold concrete walls of any institution is simply absurd, and the money wasted on their worthless lives could be much better spent feeding the hungry, or perhaps counseling the minds of the Victims they left behind.

• &#64;Alexa Kim Good morning to you too. In regard to 'vengeance', that's because I think most people who are victims state a politically-acceptable desire for justice when in fact they want to cause harm (in some form or another) to those who harmed them. That's not justice, it's vengeance. I can sympathise with those feelings, but I wouldn't try to build a justice-system around them. "An eye for an eye" made sense in the harsh environment of an unforgiving desert, and a theocracy that ruled through fear, but it has no place in a modern society. I'm no fan of organised religion, but I seem to recall that some bloke circa 2000 years ago was claiming the whole concept was out of date even back then... As for my identification of victims differing from yours, it's not that I put said people ahead of anyone else, it's that I put them alongside. You say you're baffled, well what baffles me is that you don't recognise their 'victim' state, and that you're prepared for them to (admittedly very rarely) pay the ultimate price. It's not that I don't sympathise with those attacked, it's that I also sympathise with those wrongfully accused, especially if they're going to be executed a week after the initial conviction, as was being recommended. I couldn't countenance that, again, it comes back to whether you truly believe that it's better a guilty man go free than an innocent man be wrongfully punished. I do, and I'm prepared to put up with the consequences of that. @Officer Pat [grin] it does indeed not come as a surprise that you're as staunch a capitalist as you state. I'm pleased you have great health, ideally everyone would. My mother had fantastic health until she suddenly got cancer though, as they say in insurance adverts: past performance is no guarantee of future success. I wish you good health for the rest of your days. Your comments do sort of reinforce my point above of the 'focus on me' approach that extreme capitalism encourages though. Perhaps it's how I was brought up, but I don't have a problem with paying a small amount of money every month (even now, 5 years after I left the country) to help others. It's not because of my mother and uncle either, I was perfectly happy paying for the four years before anything happened to them. It's just what you do, where I come from. Everyone pays a little all the time, and everyone benefits big-time when you need it. And almost everyone needs it sometime. After my family had recovered, I did a little digging to try and figure out how much it would have cost us (well, me, since I'm the one who has some cash) in the USA. Best figures I could come up with were circa $175,000 for my uncle ( http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/03/27/india.medical.travel/index.html ) and circa $100,000 ( http://ideas.repec.org/a/wkh/phecon/v27y2009i3p199-209.html ) for my mother (using the top-end of the scale since she's still young-ish). There's no way we would have had that lying around "just in case". My parents house cost $15,000 when they bought it, and I somehow doubt it's appreciated that much either. In any case, I don't think you ought to have to sell your home to be cured of a disease. It's a myth that people would be denied treatment in ER, agreed, but I've seen too many documentaries showing uninsured people given basic 'patch up the immediate symptom and get rid of the patient' care to really believe it works as well as the UK system. I've seen hidden-camera footage of hospitals bandaging a head wound and discharging the patient rather than doing proper investigation, I've seen homeless people still in hospital gowns being given a taxi-ride to the nearest shelter without any proper medical care. This is all on video, it's not someone telling a friend of a friend... In a society where health-care is a business proposition, we will always see these sort of atrocious actions by businesses trying to improve the bottom line. The free market also suffers from (direct or indirect) collusion. When a product is highly sought-after, and sparsely available, the price does not necessarily fall due to competition. The concept of 'industry-standard' pricing is an <i>emergent property</i> of the market itself, rather than the more-usual 'lowest-possible-within-constraints' pricing. There's more than one solution to the market equations. Direct collusion is easily handled by government intervention - the anti-trust and monopoly laws are easy to apply. Indirect collusion is far harder to detect and prevent though, it's characterised by slow but relentless increase in prices across the board, all of them "justifiable" in some sense, but unnecessary apart from the profit motive. A niche market (and healthcare is sufficiently divisible to qualify stochastically as a set of niche markets) is especially vulnerable to this sort of indirect collusion. Result: as soon as there's a viable excuse for an increase in prices, in a specific area where there is more supply than demand, those prices rise, even though the only motive is to make more money from others misery. So, I guess my fundamental problem with capitalism as a solution to health is that I don't see why people should make more (and in some cases, it's ridiculously, nose-bleedingly more) money than is required. I have no problem with profit as a motivator, I have a problem with profit leading to people being unable to afford something, or it bankrupting them, or forcing them to sell their house to pay for an unavoidable stroke of bad fortune. I should qualify that, if there were no other way, then of course that would be the only option, and therefore the best option. My issue is that there is another, cheaper-overall, more-equitable way that doesn't ruin people's lives, and it's called socialised (or nationalised, if you prefer) medical care. Tell me, does the freebie medical care that an uninsured person has today in the USA include home-visits by specially-trained nurses for cancer patients ? Does it always provide top-tier medical care ? Is there no limit on how long you can stay post-operation ? Does it include free medication for life thereafter ? If it answers 'no' to any of these questions, it's inferior. Why promote a more-expensive, riskier, and inferior system of healthcare ? And of course, there's the whole notion that you're trusting your medical care to an insurance agency, which has a profit motive. This is the same sort of company that tries to screw you over when you have a car accident; even if it's 100% the other driver's fault your premiums can go up. In the case of the health industry, there's a special level of hell prepared for the people who work in the 'recission' department. Their job is to go through your entire medical history, research your life, and see if there's any possible, remotely plausible (or not, from the stories on the 'net) reason why they can cancel the insurance of anyone they insured, as soon as it looks like the company will make a large loss on that insurance deal. Rescission is a cancer in its own right; it's a blight on the common decency of the medical care industry in the USA. It doesn't exist in the UK. Finally, there's the whole 'pre-existing condition' palaver. I'm not sure whether Obama-care covers this fully (in practice) but it used to be that your insurance would specifically not cover you for any chronic malady you had when you took it out. Again, there's no such thing in the UK, which is as it should be. There's more I could write about healthcare - the longer-livelihood (on average) of UK vs US citizens (because UK people think nothing of going to see the doctor, the "insults" to their body don't add up as much over time, so you live longer), the freely-available to all (including non-citizens, such as myself here in the USA), and the fact that $50k of income/year pales into insignificance when you have $200k of student-loan debt... But I won't do more than mention in passing... I guess I can close by saying that I regard top-notch health-care to be as much of a right as breathing oxygen, but here in the USA, its seen more as a privilege, and it's available to those who can pay for that privilege. I think that's fundamentally wrong - but hey, it's another compromise I'm willing to make to stay here, and I (currently) have an excellent medical plan that only costs me 4x what I paid in the UK every month when I lived there. Simon

• I blame Kesha, lady gaga and any other of those stupid whores that make girls think they're all high maintenance and can get away with this kind of bullshit when they don't even know what the fuck they're talking about

• &#64;Officer Pat, I look forward to the rest of your view on this topic. In the meantime, I'll answer for myself why you should be forced to pay for someone else's health care. First, as you basically already know, we are already being forced to pay for someone else, when they go to the emergency room and end up getting charged the most expensive rates for non-emergent care. Usually, the uninsured are forced to do that, if they are not wealthy. And often, the very poor have to, and they often cannot pay the exorbitant bill. That unpaid bill gets spread out and tacked onto the bills of those who do pay their bills. Why do we have to be forced to help our fellow humans who are sick? Which sickness prevents them from working. In a society such as ours, where helping each other is a natural ethic, this should not be viewed as something that has to be forced on you. After all, though you enjoy great health now, one day you may not. And that illness may not be easily or quickly cured. Some afflictions have no cure. It would be cruel to withhold treatment to you simply because you can't pay. And it's unnecessary. As a member of the military, you have guaranteed medical care for all time to come. Paid for by me. I am happy about that, I promise you, very happy. And, actually, I would like to provide a guaranteed place for you to live if you are a combat veteran. That is not currently the case, but I wish it was so. It tears my heart in two when I read stories about homeless veterans. Sure, some are suffering a variety of issues and not all are combat vets, but, still, I want to protect them, for they volunteered to protect me.

• It shouldn't come as any surprise to you, Simon, that I'm a staunch capitalist. After all, you said it yourself: I favor things that demonstrate my own strength and independence. I despise taking or giving handouts of any kind. So, capitalism it is! Now, for healthcare, my health is impeccable. Outside of the minimal amount of routine checkups, I haven't been to the doctor in over a decade (broke my arm in 1998). Why should I be forced to pay for anything? I shouldn't. If I get hurt, I can go to the doctor and pay for the treatment that I receive, with the price being dictated by market actions. It's a total myth that one could visit the ER and be refused treatment; under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, anyone who shows up at a hospital that receives Medicare dollars will be treated, whether or not they have insurance or are even legally in the United States. They will owe money at the conclusion, but their life will have been saved and that's the big thing. We're not simply letting people get sick and die because they don't have money. The best way to keep prices down, as in any system, is to rely on free market economics to naturally regulate prices through healthy competition. The government's lone role is to break up monopolies, as it's already been doing for decades, and beyond that, they should butt out. The free market will handle this. Lastly, the 46 million uninsured is an outright lie. According to statistics from the Congressional Budget Office in 2009, nine million of that number are not citizens of this country. Twelve million are eligible for government assistance but have failed to grab their piece of the pie, and SEVENTEEN MILLION of America's uninsured have household incomes above $50,000. Meaning they could afford healthcare, but chose not to. That's cool, that's freedom after all...but that doesn't put the burden on me. Anyhow, this post was kinda rushed. I need to head back to work. I'll be back later.

• *blinks* "How does that song go? ... you would cry to...." D'oh. "you would cry too...." @ccccc, any agreements, large or small, are welcome.

• Yeah, Alexa, I know you and I don't see eye-to-eye too often, but I can totally get behind you on the socialism and medical portion of your commentary.

• Amen, Pete.

• "Trouble is, the socialism is reserved for the wealthiest and most crafty of capitalists. They draft the laws that covertly grant them subsidies and tax exemptions that the rest of us don't even know exist until it's too late." Speak the gospel, Alexa.

• Gabriel, we are being friends! We're having a very civil and engaging discussion, I promise. It might look confrontational if you're fresh to the thread, but, honestly, we're all getting along swimmingly. =)

• The UK and US justice systems both suck; there's really no need to spar about which sucks more. They are both flawed in different ways, and neither is remotely close to perfect, period. I'm saddened by this outbreak of animosity I've noticed lately on the net between Americans and Britons. Our two countries have deep historical ties of friendship and I think it's important to maintain that. Not only does it mutually benefit us in the geopolitical sense, but in the cultural and social senses as well. I've met about 50 Britons in my life and I've liked almost every one. My best friend just got engaged to a guy from London and they're having a Brookln - London long distance relationship. I love him; he's a great guy. Come on guys...let's be friends!

• &#64;Simon, good morning. I'm glad to know that, in concept at least, you do not see yourself as immune to the pleas of justice (and vengeance?) for "true" victims. Your wording does cause me to want to ask what are the thoughts that were in play while composing those sentences? Sincerely curious. For the record, though there are plenty of who I call the overly-Christianized who have deep seated, brain-washed aversion to vengeance, I do not consider it a bad thing. To borrow a phrase out of the Bible, "vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord." Ok, so, what does He mean by that? If vengeance is so repellent, why would God want it? And, it's been my experience, that blessings are delivered to people by other people drafted as earth bound angels, if you will. So, if God delivers mercy by way of people, he delivers justice by way of people, too. Of course a wrongfully executed man is a victim. But why he stands at the front of the line of victims on your legal pad is what baffles me most. Though you address the balance of your comment to Officer Pat, I read it, naturally, neener, and first let me say, well-written, well-formatted comments are exceedingly easy to read, not tedious in the least and so it was effortless to read it in its entirety. As you've probably experienced for yourself, America does have a blended system of capitalism with blobs of socialism scattered here and there within it. Trouble is, the socialism is reserved for the wealthiest and most crafty of capitalists. They draft the laws that covertly grant them subsidies and tax exemptions that the rest of us don't even know exist until it's too late. I happen to agree that the judicious application of socialism in our medical concerns is the way to go. We've tried capitalism on it, and it leaves too many people sick, bankrupt and abandoned. Capitalism is not good at everything, just like socialism isn't, either. A balanced, informed and individual-rights-respecting blend of capitalism and socialism for everyone is likely the best compromise, eventually. I think America and the UK can lead the way in this regard. How does that song go? "It's my country and I'll cry if I want to, cry if I want to, you would cry to...." No, no, no, that's not it....

• [Apologies in advance. This is huge] @Alexa Kim Fair enough. I'm not immune to the pleas of justice and vengeance for true victims, by the way. I guess I just see more victims. @Officer Pat Good ole Winston. Always there with a quote. Another of his more famous lines is 'You can always count on Americans to do the right thing—after they've tried everything else'. Not so palatable to the current audience, I suspect. You won't hear me argue against capitalism per se, and you won't hear me argue for pure socialism. I prefer some of the more-socialist policies of the UK, but that's from personal experience. I suspect, had I grown up in the more-radically capitalistic USA, I might prefer that. In any case, I don't think of it as an either/or. I think of it as a sliding-scale. I do prefer the NHS in the UK over the private health-care system in the US, for example, even though I have excellent medical coverage over here... Example: I was married almost exactly a year ago, and 2 weeks before the wedding, two things happened. My mother was diagnosed with breast cancer, and my uncle had a heart attack. None of my extended family are what would be described as wealthy - my uncle and father worked on the docks all their lives, my mother had part-time jobs in banks, travel-agencies, etc. I was the first kid in my family-history to go to university... I'm trying to paint a picture here - we got by, in an impoverished Northern town. Some years were better than others. My uncle was immediately admitted to hospital for bypass surgery. He's fine now. My mother elected to come out to the USA for the wedding and the hospital booked her in for her first appointment (of many) the day after her return. They did all the pre-op preparatory stuff before she came out so there'd be no surprises. There were several visits to the hospital, eventually culminating in a couple of operations (removal of the lymphatic system on her left side, and then removal of the cancer itself), and subsequent radiotherapy visits for 3 months afterwards. She made it through, and is now cancer-free. During the entire process, she had twice-weekly (or more, if she wanted) home-visits from nurses who specialise in cancer, the treatments, and the after-effects. Sometimes just sharing a cup of tea with someone who understands is worth a lot, you know ? As I mentioned, my family is not well off. The cost to my parents was simply the price of taxis (which the hospital arranged and reimbursed on arrival at the hospital cash-office. Yes, in the UK the cash-office exists to pay patients out-of-pocket expenses, not to take any payment). No payment for the operation, no payment for the at-home nursing, no payment for the radiotherapy, no payment for any of the pills she'll be on for the rest of her life. There's no way our family could have afforded the first-class service of my mother's and my uncle's surgery under the US system. They'd have "slipped through the cracks". ... When I first met her, my wife (a lawyer, with a JD/MBA, so someone I thought would have all the benefits etc.) used to try not to go to the doctor if she could help it, even if she was ill. I just couldn't believe it. She was struggling with debt from college (which I never had, the UK paid for me to go to college), debt from her mortgage, and could only find contractor jobs in the depressed market at the time, so no health insurance. Of course, I quickly put her on mine as a "domestic partner", allowed under my company's health plans if you live together. The concept of anyone, *anyone*, without proper top-tier health care was just alien to me. Not to mention ugly and abhorrent. The lowliest street-urchin in the UK (yes we have them too) got better health-care than my wife could depend on. ... I still pay my national-insurance contributions (how the NHS is funded) in the UK, even though I'm not there, and I'll not use it. I can afford it (at ~$15/month) and I'll be eternally grateful for how my mother and uncle made good use of it. Maybe I'll be back there soon, and then I'll be grateful myself, but no-one is charged anything for health-care in the UK at the point-of-need. I don't have to pay any more, and if a foreigner visits the UK and falls ill, there is no charge. Hospitals exist to make people better, in the UK, not to make a profit. I hear a lot about "why should my taxes help that other person who doesn't pay them" over here in the US. I don't hear "we're all in it together - I'll help you out now, and you can help me out later" as much. I think that stems from the iron-clad focus on capitalism - how *I* can benefit. I think there's something to be said for the *we* argument, and the more-socialist approach to fundamental things like health-care. Obama-care is a step in the right direction, but it still panders far too much to the big health-care companies that want to profit from others illnesses. ... So, yes, capitalism is a good thing in my opinion - it let me start a company, have it bought out by a much larger company, and brought me to the USA to live in a nice place, and meet my gorgeous, wonderful wife. But I believe more in tempered capitalism, where there's more of a social net to catch people (like my mother and my uncle); where one stroke of bad luck doesn't mean you're crippled with a massive medical debt, or dead from an illness you can't afford to have healed. We Brits love to complain a lot about the NHS, but I'd take it in a heartbeat over the US system, and I've lived extensively under both. The UK has a flourishing private medical insurance business as well - proving that it's not an either/or. There's room in capitalism for a little bit of socialism, it's not a dirty word. And if it means that we all have to bond a bit more with our fellow man, well shucks, that's not the end of the world. ... I'm writing all this, and it has dawned on me that all I've done so far in this forum is complain about faults I perceive in the US. Let me correct that - there's lots to love and admire about the US, the people are friendly, the system is stable, and I live a life I genuinely enjoy out here. I don't think it's perfect though (just as I don't think the UK system is perfect, there's a long list of things I could go on about with our system), but lines like "Capitalism is the most successful economic system in human history. Period" almost demand to be challenged. Capitalism works, more or less. Pure capitalism, though, is a harsh world to live in, where one problem, maybe not even of your making, can destroy your life. Capitalism is like a fine blade, it needs to be tempered to be most-effective. The problem for a lot of USA peeps is that the tempering is called Socialism. Simon. [believe it or not, that line 'Capitalism is like a fine blade...' is not a quote, it's original. I rather like it :]

• Ok I'm tired of everyone getting pissy over the gun control issue. My husband and I have about 10 guns in our house. Now ours are for hunting and home protection. Making guns illegal for the average person to have won't do anything. Drugs are illegal and the criminals still have them. Some kinds of guns are illegal and guess what, the criminals still have them and use them. I am not going to have my home sitting just waiting for one of these idiots to break in and rape my little girl or myself. You go ahead and tell your little one that someone elses life was more important than you being able to have some sort of way to protect her innocense. If you find a way to tell that and can make that make sense in your mind then you've got serious issues. The other thing is not that owning guns makes people kill more. That will happen anyway not matter what there is to use. I really believe that it is the ME ME ME society that we are hae reared our children in. Let them express themselves! Don't punish them! Well we've done nothing but make our own mess on that part! As for the girls in this story, they deserve more than 3-5 yrs. Maybe not death but I'd say at least 15 yrs or so. I am an "eye for an eye" person. You do something to someone, you better be ready for it to come right back at you. The consequences in most industrialized worlds just isn't scary enough to stop people from do terrible things.

• "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." Would I be wrong to assume you know who said this? He was your greatest and most famous leader. Capitalism has recessions like the one we're in now, I'll give you that. But it's a natural cycle that will be cured by free market principles, not by Obama and his cronies intervening. Socialism, on the other hand, has failed wherever it's been implemented. It's an unsustainable philosophy that is based in a non-reality that ignores human nature. Europe's socialist-based economies are struggling now; not from cyclical recessions, but because they are stuck with economic philosophies that suck. Capitalism is the most successful economic system in human history. Period.

• &#64;Simon, Well, then we must agree to disagree. So long as you cannot get past the much smaller risk to the wrongly accused such that you cannot even mention any feelings of sorrow, regret, outrage for, demand for justice for the VICTIMS, then, that is where we must adjourn. Goodnight.

• &#64;Officer Pat You can have the phrase with my compliments :) Indeed, I wasn't trying to be ironic or derogatory, I was genuinely trying to capture how I thought you felt. The little old granny was a metaphor, of course - there are all sorts of situations where having a gun gives you a massive advantage over not having one in any conflict situation. My point was that when guns are *not* commonplace (like in the UK) gun crime is vastly reduced, and "granny" has even less to fear, statistically speaking. Had to smile at "failing socialist economies, by the way. I'm not sure the US economy is doing so well at the moment... I know my house is almost $100k underwater at the moment... [context-switch] @saint_dismas I don't think I've been clear - I'm saying that there's no justification for capital punishment, given an imperfect judicial system. I'm not arguing (because I don't believe it) that Big John should have a sentence reduced because little johnnie was bullied at school. Actions have consequences, and I firmly believe that if you injure or kill someone, you should be fully punished. I'm just stating that I don't agree with the death penalty, *because* it may turn out that Big John didn't do it after all, that lying Policeman Peter lied... In that case, if we've killed Big John, it's a bit late to say 'oops'. @Alexa Kim I think we'll disagree on this, but yes. I think life imprisonment is in fact sufficient - the removal of liberty is the punishment; liberty is something that people have voluntarily died for, I think its removal is a terrible punishment. I also think life ought to mean life, and I think "lifers" ought not get any privileges (ever) in prison, but that's a different argument. And it's not so much that I fear being wrongly accused now, as much as I would fear it under the totalitarian "you're convicted, you are executed, rapidly" argument being put forward above. Today's system is something of a compromise (you can tell politicians were involved). Yes, you execute people (in some states), but only after removing every conceivable reason not to. I can live with that, even if I don't really think it's ideal. I couldn't begin to conceive of the horror of being on a jury that wrongly convicted a fellow human being, and being the direct cause of that human's state-sponsored murder. I guess the issue is that I consider the innocent (wo)man falsely convicted by a court to be as much a victim as the (wo)man victim you describe above. If you truly believe that it's better a guilty man go unpunished than an innocent man be punished, as I do, and if you believe that someone wrongly-convicted should be somehow compensated, I don't see how you can reconcile that with approving of the death penalty. You can't "undo" killing someone. Something has to give, and in my case it's the death penalty - in yours, I suspect it's the principle - pardon me for putting words into your mouth [damn, there I go being all polite again], but I can't see any way around that inherent disparity.

• I like progression, Paul. However, it's not found in big government which Europe and liberals are so fond of. You can take your gun control, criminal coddling, and failing socialist economies and keep it. I'll keep my gun-toting, crime-hating capitalism, thank you very much.

• They only got 3 to 5 years, good, when they get out . . . Hopefully the victims family will be there waiting . . .

• &#64;saint_dismas, hey, I replied to you over at the thread about the 11-year old boy who hanged himself.

• &#64;Simon, for your consideration should you remember to or care to return to this thread if only to see what else we had, I say we just had, to say. I hope you had a lovely evening with your American wife. Indeed, we're not all bad. =) That you do not want innocent people to be killed matches exactly what I feel. I, too, fervently wish to end the killing of innocent people. Those who are killed without due process of any kind, by a criminal. I wish only to execute those who have killed without due process, without regard for life at all. Life imprisonment for some violent criminals is suitable to me only because there are too many who think the excision of a cancer is not urgent enough for child molesters or rapists. They don't feel the jab of the violating penis between their labia, or the nauseating wrong-way trespass of it up their rectum, deep into their insides with the angry bitterness of a man eager to humiliate and claw out even a crumb of cold revenge. Life imprisonment for killers, real killers, like the 10 on the Listverse list I linked in my earlier comment, is much too generous. It forces their victims, the families of their victims, who all still pay taxes, taxes which pay for their incarceration, pay for their food, pay for their clothing, pay for their medical care, to essentially provide protection and succor to their heinous violators, victimizers, predators, haters most profound. Is that justice to you? And in the case of terrorists, such as Yousef, Moussaoui and al-Zarqawi, their continued living makes them too enticing to the likes of Hizb'allah and Hamas who will, if not already, demand their release in exchange. Those who prey so utterly and so miserably on our body human, our civilization at large, with their corrosive metastasis require, for our health, complete and permanent removal. I believe America does the very best it can, constantly striving for perfection, to make sure she never wrongly executes the wrong person. I know that so long as humans lie, chiefly those who commit the heinous crimes and never admit it, and those who want so badly to believe they have the right person in custody, just the facts are not all available just yet, and those who truly don't give a damn, we will continue to make mistakes. And here is where we diverge in our view of the world and our chances of escaping it comfortable with all we had the chance to achieve. You fear being wrongly accused. For your fear, there are many and strong safeguards, though not perfect. I fear being wrongly tortured, debased, violated, abused, disbelieved, and/or killed, and forgotten as just another dead female. For my fear there is still very little between me and that very real possibility. So, you'll pardon me while I continue to champion for the greater valuation of the life of women and children such that they receive the same protections that men receive when they are the accused. And, I will never give up my gun. Skol.

• Society in any state is a blessing, while picking governments is choosing between a Lesser of Evils. (evil in its worst state intolerable.) I think Thomas Paine was quite on his mark when he penned that. (or ..quilled more likely) Pete, I think that the crime rate would probably decrease with more gun control enforced, but the initial act of enforcing it would be bothersome. I can only imagine the various Militia Act Movement individuals having WACO style shootouts with the government. Then there would be the problem of individuals who own them illegally or who have stolen them from somewhere, theres no real way to track them down until they shoot someone and get caught, or someone snitches on them. Such a process would likely takes Years before any workable form of enforcement was possible. Officer Pat...I somewhat share your "eye for an eye" convictions...but guns are messy, loud, and generally inconventional tools for meting out Justice. Euthanasia via Lethal Injection, or simply old school death by hanging is the way to go. Simon, admirable views..but such an attitude towards criminal mentality is one of the reasons the crime rate increases. Harsher punishment for Societys Worst would more likely be a deterrent against offending, than "politeness" and trying to "explain" away everyones actions by resorting to psychological justifications. (oh, poor guy...not enough hugs as a child, woe is him, lets give him a lighter sentence...blah) Society is a garden full of tares, it's time someone started plucking out a few so the roses can bloom.

• I like "every man for himself" too! It reminds me of capitalism, the greatest economic system the world has ever known. That one probably wasn't a surprise... :)

• &#64;Simon, A very well presented and coherent case. Good job. I always end up in a state of dismay after reading speels of text coming from a 'typical' gun-toting, god-fearing, brash and brutal American. Europe has it's issues, but at least they don't view progression as a dirty word. I just wish Americans didn't have so much power and influence over the world, I don't actually care how they run their society so long as they keep it there. Of course, they don't - and that's the issue. <- Australian.

• I can accept that definition of my world view, Simon. Hell, I might even adopt it. A minimally restricted dog-eat-dog world where the fast draw and the stronger man wins. It's natural selection! Which I've always been partial to... As for old, arthritic granny, she's got the cops to protect her. She also has the protection of the well-meaning populace. I'll gladly protect my elderly defenseless neighbors with my guns and my strength, as much as I can. Also, granny can own guns herself! But, wait, what if granny is too old and senile to use a weapon in her defense?! Well then, I have news for you: Whoever wants to kill her, he's not gonna need a gun...

• &#64; Holly Yes, but men do that because they are depraved. Women do it cause of luuuuuuuvvvvvvvvvv!

• *feeling sheepish and oh sooo very blonde* OMG...I do so apologize Simon...I thought it was a bicycle, seriously, sorry. I didn't go to that link cause I am good christian woman and don't look at other mens' legs except husband. LOL And as it WAS a motorcycle..you have now become mucho granda MANDO man in my book. @alexa.. Hoot and a half huh? Well guess what I am gonna do.... I am going to dye my hair brown, that way I can be artificially intelligent. So there!

• &#64;Alexa I'm well aware that no judicial system is perfect. I guess our difference is a philosophical one: I don't believe we should kill innocent people, ever. In the case of a life-sentence, any miscarriage of justice is a terrible thing, but the accused could be compensated (at least monetarily) and has not lost his/her life. The point of the article is (I think) that most of the evidence was questionable even at the time, but the conviction and subsequent execution was carried out anyway. Most of the cases are old, as you rightly point out, but I don't believe that human nature has changed that much, and people still lie. If I was someone wrongly accused of murder, I can't say I'd be considering it a gift on the day of my execution, either. You're justifying the sometime state murder of individuals by saying "well, it doesn't happen often", and I cannot agree with that sentiment. Life in prison is hardly a panacea, and life without possibility of parole could even be considered worse than a short drop to a quick death. Well, I'd say more but my (American, see I don't think *everything* is wrong over here :) wife has just arrived... Simon

• &#64;Sharon Ouch. I think that just hurt more than the motorcycle accident. In my defence, I didn't cry once - does that help my case ? No ? Ok, let me see if I can spin this... The car was bigger and heavier than a grizzly bear, goes faster than a grizzly bear, and when the event happened, I literally flew through the air straight down the maw of the giant beast, hitting it quite literally head-on... Not only did I smash its windscreen with my head, but the spine-protector in my jacket left a dinosaur-like row of indentations along the bonnet, where my back slammed down into it. It couldn't move afterwards (both the bike and the car were write-offs), and all it got from me was one old boot and a visor. Is that better ? Ok, admittedly I couldn't do much afterwards either, but I could have (very slowly and very carefully) crawled away with my dignity (pretty much only my dignity) intact ... At least I could move :) Simon.

• &#64;Simon, I took a moment to review the 10 Notorius Criminals Proven to be Innocent and with the exception of the Willingham case, which I have been paying attention to as well, they were mostly concerning crimes committed in times when forensic science and stringent crime scene evidence collection was not nearly as exacting as today. Of course, if we were to have the luxury of being able to submit to modern science the evidence collected then, likely more cases would be adjudged differently. But we must be realistic about life today and crime today. To hold back, out of the fear for making a mistake not humanly possible to detect until years, decades in the future, is to deny justice not just to the accused but to the aggrieved. A chief difference in our positions, I think, is that I am interested in seeking justice for those who are victimized, harmed, damaged, tortured, killed. Fully denied all the due process that we guarantee the accused. That imbalance has yet to be addressed in our system which overcompensates for the crimes of the Crown, long, long now history. For so long as the accused is considered, for all intents and purposes to be innocent until proven guilty, then the accuser, who is very often a woman or a child, is considered to be lying. Here is a list of 10 Convicted Killers whose trial record detail their horrific crimes: http://listverse.com/2010/08/01/10-crimes-of-men-on-death-row/ I do not believe that humans have to wait for perfect science before we can trust ourselves to deliver justice to not just the killed or harmed, but to society at large. We are entitled to make mistakes and indeed, mistakes are gifts. For it is with every mistake that we strive even harder to prevent one like it again. To the improvement of our achievement of justice more just. For the sake of us all, I prefer to err on the side of risking the still rarer case of wrongful execution than that of the more common cases of being murdered, raped and treason.

• Hey, wake up. It's not just women who are capable of this kind of sick crime. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/06/nyregion/06rape.html">Man Rapes and Tortures Woman for 19 Hours</a> "The accused, Robert A. Williams, 31, had doused the woman's face and body with boiling water and bleach, forced her to swallow handfuls of pills and to chase them with beer, sealed her mouth with glue, and bound her wrists and legs with shoelaces, cords and duct tape, said the prosecutor, Ann P. Prunty. And now, Ms. Prunty said, he was asking the woman to gouge out her own eyes with a pair of scissors. She lowered her face to the blade, but turned her head at the last moment, trying to stab herself in the neck instead of her eyes. The scissors slipped from her grasp, the suicide attempt failed, and the woman suffered several more hours of torture, Ms. Prunty said."

• Simon..you should really tell people you recieved the scar by trying to rescue a chipmunk from a grizzly bear. More impressive then falling off your bike. Now I just see someone who needs to go back to training wheels 101 instead of a manly man!

• Also...bobbies shouldn't be allowed to carry firearms until they are driving something with more power then a V2 glorified golf cart. (nasal horn sound) neeeep neeeep j/k

• &#64;Simon, I was being subtle when I mentioned "fallacies" for I did not count those initially employed early in the discourse. Hot blood and whatnot. No artifice intended, I assure you. =) Well, I don't think I could take you seriously if you thought you were "wrong about a fair amount"! ;) Indeed, we will simply see it differently at this juncture and hopefully over time, further discussions over a variety of topics, might allow some leeway towards each other wherever we can see the room. Read your blog detailing your bike accident - ow, indeed. Glad to know you survived and now have a bragging scar. It's been a delight and I look forward to future such "debates" here. I think you and Officer Pat, a member of our armed forces and someone I greatly respect, will reach a ground of mutual respect, at a minimum. Oh, and do make friends with Sharon, she's a hoot and a half!

• [sigh] This (http://www.popcrunch.com/10-notorious-criminals-proven-innocent-after-execution/) arrived on digg.com minutes, I say *minutes* too late for my argument above regarding the death sentence... Simon. {Ok, technically the post above wasn't the last one after all [grin]}

• WAIT A MINUTE SIMON!!! you say "I don't trust most people (in the USA or elsewhere) to drive a car properly." May I remind you that YOU drive on the wrong side of the road? Geesh maneties already. lol... I crack me up!

• Last one on this.. @Alexa: I'm not sure if you're being subtle and clever with the "fallacies" comment. If you are, I'm afraid it went over my head. I also don't think I'm "wrong about a fair amount" [grin]. I guess that's one of the places we differ :) And lastly, the knife may scar, but scars heal - I have an 8" scar down my leg where I ripped it open in a motorcycle accident ( http://blog.gornall.net/files/eatDrinkAndBeMerry.html ), but it's hard to see after 10 years of healing. The gun is far more likely to kill. It's not a choice I'd like to face, but IMHO the knife is still the lesser of two evils. Yes, I'm aware I'm unlikely to be stabbed in the leg [grin]. @Officer Pat: I guess we're both after the same thing - to not be assaulted or attacked in a way that leaves us dying or maimed. Trying for some middle ground here, I'd say your goal was to rely on your own abilities in a minimally-restricted dog-eat-dog world where the faster draw, or the stronger man wins. You're happy with that because it reinforces your ideal of your own strength and independence. My problem with that is that not everyone is as capable as you deem yourself to be. Self-protection only extends as far as your own personal sphere of influence, and statistically, 50% of people are weaker than average - and I'm not talking about physical weakness here. It takes quite a lot to look at someone straight in the eyes, and pull that trigger, even if they're a danger to you. The crook you mention will therefore see your "Glock" sticker, and indeed hop on over to the arthritic old grandma who's less likely to own or be able to operate a gun. The everyone-should-look-after-themselves mantra doesn't work in an inequitable society, and all human societies are inequitable. The government taking that gun away from you (and everyone else) does in fact lead to lower gun crime, just looking at the raw numbers. Doing it this way means there's no stirring of deep passions, no fulfillment of personal triumph, and no feeling of righteousness over a foe vanquished, but it is safer for the society as a whole. Because of the long history of gun ownership in the USA, it'd have to be done seriously and thoroughly. There'd have to be a new way of thinking introduced - not "every man for himself", but "everyone in it together". And you'd have to give it the 20 years or so to work that mantra into something that people can believe in before you try to analyse how well it worked. It'll never[*] happen in the USA, of course. Some people will be happy with that, and (generally) other people will pay with their lives for that. I hope you understand that I'm not trying to be critical here - it just makes me feel sad. I don't expect you to agree with me, and I'm not trying to persuade you. As you might say, just my $0.02. Simon. [*] Never meaning: I cannot conceive of it happening in my lifetime. Never is a very long time.

• Thanks for the welcome, Pete. Now, how are we gonna do that? I mean, if you could figure out a way to find out who the candy-asses and scumbags are and take their guns away and ONLY their guns away, then sure, I'd be all for it. It'd be stupid not to support gunlessness for some turd who's gonna pull a drive-by on a five year old. But if it's gonna threaten the gun ownership of those of us who are legitimate, safe and responsible, and plan only on using their weapons for self-defense, hunting and recreation, then no way. I'll steal Simon's logic on this one, and say that it is better that some bad men have guns than it is that one good man has his guns confiscated.

• How about this, Pat, you being a soldier and all: Don't you think the U.S. would be much safer if we radically reduced our gun volume, like Britain has? That would mean all the candy-ass shitbags who can now kill at a distance -- by that I mean gangbangers, guys who shoot up their jobs like in CT today, and the general assortment of pussies who murder -- would suddenly have to kill face-to-face. I think we'd see our homicide rate drop by 75 percent, simply because most murderers are chickenshit and would never be able to do it toe-to-toe. What does thou think, fairest readers? P.S. By the way, Pat, I forgot to formally welcome you to the site. It's always good to see someone new jumping in and joining the discussion. Thanks for showing up.

• Simon, I'd rather not be gunned down at all either, but if it happens, God forbid, I would rather it happen because I failed at my right to self-protection, and not because the government took it from me. Additionally, my right to self protection, and criminals knowing that I have that right and will absolutely use it, will be a greater deterrence to crime against me than law enforcement will ever be. Meaning, when a crook sees my little "Glock" sticker on the back window my truck, he's gonna hop on to greener pastures rather than risk getting shot in the face. There is no better deterrent.

• &#64;Officer Pat, Your latest comment expresses quite well my beliefs as well. I know that you and Simon got off to a bad start there, and I think if Simon were to take some time to read more of what you have written, he might see that you are the quite reasonable, law-loving, peace-protecting, gentleman, warrior and valuable citizen you have shown yourself to be. Simon does show promise, I must also say. He's a Brit, and they tend to value fair debate (after the initial salvos, that is). Of course, he's wrong about a fair amount but he's being civilized about it. =) Time is on our side in this regard. And, What Would Monty Python Do? *swig*

• &#64;Simon, Oh, yes, our discourse has been entirely vile, nasty and you are certifiable [totally kidding! =)]. I am somewhat encouraged to know that both parties must agree to the usage of Sharia but I will wait to see how it plays out in full application. Hmmm, a knife slash or a gun shot... well, again, I must disagree. I'd much rather be shot for at least there is less risk of facial disfigurement (unless they aim for and hit the face). Guns allow much greater distance between assailant and intended victim. Knife wounds can be so painful and it takes longer to, well, die. This is a rather morbid china pattern picking party, eh? Eddie Izzard is a quite good actor as well. I watched his show in LA at the Wiltern. I loved his printer problem bit too. It is so much easier to agreeably disagree with those who at least endeavor to do so in good faith with you and don't resort to fallacies because they don't need to. Well, well, well: it's *past* 5 o'clock! I'm late for beer. Back shortly....

• &#64;Officer Pat. I'm not twisting your words. I'm simply stating them. I'm glad you don't believe what you appeared to be saying, but it's not my fault you weren't clear. As quoted, and with the vehemence inherent in the words, it's really easy to read it how I originally saw it. Agreed, we'll have to disagree. I don't believe in executing the innocent under any circumstances, and I think that living in a society that thinks likewise has costs and benefits. One of those costs is letting the guilty get away with things they ought not to, on occasion. Regarding the gun part. My point is that I'd rather not be gunned down at all. Statistically speaking, I'm less likely (no, make that *much* less likely) to be gunned down in the UK than the US. I *believe* there's a direct correlation between that fact and the second amendment right to bear arms, because I think people are people, wherever you live. If the people are the same, it's the society that should take the blame for the relatively increased level of violence, and any given society is predicated on the rules of accepted behavior therein. We're back to the second amendment... Hey, it's *your* society, I just (for now) reside here. I'm not trying to change your laws or alter anything - the increased level of lethal violence is an acceptable cost of living here from my point of view because it's still pretty unlikely it'll affect me or mine - but just because it's acceptable doesn't make it right or good in my eyes. Simon.

• Simon, on the initial argument, you can claim whatever you want. I'm telling you right here and now, you are twisting my words into something I don't believe and that I didn't believe even before your wannabe-British ass jumped on me for it. I've always supported the right to a fair and speedy trial, and I didn't expect some USA-hating leftist would have jumped my bones for failing to explicitly mention it. As for the actual point, we'll simply disagree. I believe the justice system need not have endless doubt thrust upon it, and that punishments should be meted out swiftly. I believe the automatic review is enough to hold up certainty and fairness. And I believe that if we intend to be so unconfident in our findings that we need to keep scum like Tookie and Mumia alive for several decades to reach a point of certainty, then we might as well do away with the whole thing altogether. For the gun part, this is America and we value our freedom. The right to bear arms is protected by our base law, and this must never change. I already made my points on this one, and I don't think they need to be reiterated. Personally, I'd rather be gunned down knowing it was only because my draw wasn't fast enough than because I live under an overbearing government that doesn't believe I'm responsible enough to own a firearm. I'm sure Russell would agree.

• &#64;Simon Very informative commentary. Hope u keep posting here.

• Thanks for showing up today and giving us a little lesson on British justice, Simon. Very interesting and we really appreciate the knowledge.

• Women can be SOOOOO cruel.

• &#64;Alexa There's no option, as far as I know. Both parties *have* to speak to the judge personally, and *both* must request Sharia law. You can't name a proxy, you have to do it yourself, and if the family insist on being present, the judge would have reasonable grounds to assume there *was* coercion. This was all hashed out in the newspapers when it was being discussed before being implemented. The entire point of this is to make Sharia law an option if both parties want that (and some do), but protect those who are less-franchised by Sharia law. I don't know the figures for acid-based violence (I wasn't aware of *any* figures for acid attacks!) but I know that knife-related violence is higher in the UK in general than in the US. It's not high enough to compensate for the gun-related violence, but it is higher. Given the (thoroughly unpleasant) choice of being stabbed or being shot, though, I guess I'd go for the stabbing - guns are the weapon of choice precisely because they're more lethal. I used Eddie because he's a remarkably intelligent man - if you've ever seen him interviewed (not as a comic) he's quick and agile in debate. He tends to incorporate serious issues into his comedy, and of course, I used it because it was funny :) @Russel. None of this is personal, man. If your reaction to hearing dissenting opinions is to insult and say GTFO, you're missing out on a lot in life. I've tried to keep it polite (of course, Alexa thinks little of me for this [grin] - not being serious :) even while espousing directly contrary opinion to others on here... Simon

• Oh Russell, we don't disagree on that! I just figured admitting that any government agent who shows up to collect my firearms will be escorted off my property at gunpoint probably would have hurt my overall argument.

• &#64;Simon, concerning the real world application of Sharia law in tribunals, I would be interested to know if Muslim women, who are so closely surveilled and controlled, literally never left alone, in fact feel free to request a private meeting with the judge without fearing retaliation from her family members later. Please let us know when you know. I would be curious to know the rates of knife and acid disfiguration crime in the UK, if you happen to know. Adding my voice to Officer Pat's concerning gun rights, I found this article quite educational: http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/07/02/okun.guns.chicago/index.html It was written by Will Okun, a former Chicago high school teacher, especially for CNN Opinion. Gun control always leaves the law abiding citizenry needlessly vulnerable. No one can protect you better than you in the instant situation. No one is obliged to protect you instead of you. BTW, the Eddie Izzard joke is pretty funny (I did LOL). Of course, one should never rely on comics for life advice. Life relief, but not advice.

• &#64;Officer Pat: Quote: "Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Id I ran this show, you kill someone and we execute your ass. And we're not particularly slow or nice about doing it. Eight cent bullet to the brain by the next sunrise. Period." There's no mention in that of any system of due process. "You kill someone and we execute your ass ... by the next sunrise" doesn't allow any time for trial, at least IMHO. No strawman. Just your words. Not that I'd agree, even if there was a trial somehow wedged in there, or even if you're talking about 24 hours after an initial conviction. There's been a sufficient number of mistrials in the past (in any and every court system) that allowing for 24 hours (or even a week, as you later posited) is so wrong I don't know where to begin... Some police are corrupt. They lie in court, and their lies convict because somehow the word of an officer is worth more than the accused (this is true on both sides of the Atlantic, btw). You would be condeming innocent (wo)men to death in that circumstance. I would note the case of the Birmingham-6 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Six ) in the UK - released after 16 years of police lies kept them behind bars. That's a famous one from the UK, but there are legion. Simon

• Simon, after reading some of your comments such as: "I don't trust most people (in the USA or elsewhere) to drive a car properly. I certainly wouldn't give them a weapon that, in a moment of temper, would kill or maim others for life. Frankly, the idea is baffling, especially considering just how many gun-related homicides there are per capita in the US compared to the UK." "I'd rather have judges wearing "freaky wigs" (which are after all just a reminder to all present that the judge is empowered to judge them), than "officers" shooting people dead in the streets." "I have a lot more respect for the UK police than I do the US ones. I'm reasonably sure (because they're not armed, in general) that any UK policeman isn't going to freak out and shoot me (or electrocute me)." I had come to the conclusion that you probably weren't an American. And that if you were, then we'd be better off without your sorry ass. So I was delighted when I saw you say: "It's got to the state where I'm probably not going to stay in the USA. I'm here for the weather and for the money, but I can make just as much money in the UK or Europe, and I'm not sure the weather is a sufficiently good reason. I *like* having a pool in the back yard, and I like my job, but I'm not sure about the way this country is going - even your Democrats party would be considered raving right-wingers where I come from, the less said about the Republicans, the better." May I be the first to say "Get the fuck out of here!", if you don't like it then leave it. It's milksop attitudes like yours that are bringing about the deteriation of this country. Damn, but you sound french.

• Oh for [insert deity]'s sake. The whole "if guns are outlawed, only criminals will have guns" argument is so dated... "The level of gun ownership world-wide is directly related to murder and suicide rates and specifically to the level of death by gunfire." - 'International Correlation between gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide.' Professor Martin Killias, May 1993. See the graph at http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm - the USA is top-right. The UK is bottom-left. I don't believe that everyone in the US carrying a gun is some sort of homicidal maniac. That's not my point at all. Neither would it be the point of anyone sane. The sad fact, however, is that as more and more people carry guns, the likelihood of conflict becoming lethal gets geometrically higher. Not everyone is temperamentally suited to carrying a lethal weapon. In the US, a reluctance to single-out those who might be responsible with weapons like this has led to a universal right to bear arms. In the UK, the same process has led to a general ban on firearms, with some loopholes. Any impartial observer of the human race would conclude there are some people you would not trust with lethal force. Even if (for the sake of argument) 99% of the population would be just fine armed to the teeth, that leaves around 2,000,000 people (I'm not counting kids) in the US who should not be trusted with lethal weapons. That's a lot of people who are legally allowed to be walking around toting part of their grandfathers arsenal, who an impartial observer might not be entirely happy with. On the other hand, in the UK, you don't get that option. Some might say that it's a restriction on their liberty - and they'd be right. Just like every other restriction on their liberty that is imposed by society. We call that the law, and it's generally considered to be a good thing. I'll finish with the words of the comic Eddie Izzard... Quoting from memory so it may not be exactly right: "The N.R.A likes to tell us that 'Guns don't kill people, people kill people', and maybe they're right about that, but ... the gun helps, doesn't it ? I mean, running up behind someone and shouting BANG! very loudly - well you'd have to have a pretty dodgy ticker to drop dead from that one!" Simon.

• I'm really starting to like Officer Pat, but we do disagree on one minor issue. If they ever make gun ownership illegal, then I'll be forced to live a life of crime.

• Where am I suggesting summary justice, Simon? I never suggested killing someone a mere 24 hours after their crime. I suggested it after a fair trial that received a further review from an outside source. I don't believe we have the obligation to throw 30 years of doubt at our legal system in the form of endless appeals. Conviction by jury, then review by a neutral panel, and then get on with it. I think that is more than enough to show the strength of a conviction. Why do you insist on moving slower and less efficiently? You hinting that I support summary execution (which is explicitly without a trial or any sort of due process) is a strawman. Believing that due process should be run steadily, confidently and efficiently to produce immediate results and not make a mockery of our courts, hardly qualifies as summary justice.

• For anyone who thinks gun control is a good idea, read this: http://www.davekopel.com/2a/LawRev/lethal.htm Furthermore, if the government does have honest, well-meaning intentions unlike the governments featured in that article, it's still bizarre that they believe criminals will be deterred by yet more laws. Yeah, I'm sure someone who is going to murder several people at the risk of consecutive life sentences will be scared off by tacking on 15 years for using a gun. That's not crappy logic at all. All you're really doing is disarming the law-abiding people. If it was against the law, I wouldn't own guns, because I'm law-abiding. But a criminal, well, the very thing that makes him a criminal is that he doesn't obey the law, and as a result, he gets guns. And I'm just a fish in a barrel. Thanks. I'm also disgusted by the belief some of you apparently hold that anyone who owns a gun is an insane, wannabe killer. That's just despicable, blind, senseless prejudice. Most, if not all, legitimate gun owners are responsible, trained individuals who simply believe it's better to have a gun and not need it than to need one and not have it. Gun control fails. Just look at Chicago and DC, places where draconian gun laws have done nothing to stop skyrocketing crime rates.

• &#64;cccc I think that's exactly it. The UK is highly multi-cultural, and there's been some debate about how to best integrate different cultures into the mixing pot. Obviously (I hope) there was no desire to give up the system of justice we have, but there was a move to help integrate different cultural ideals. So, subject to being over-ridden by UK law, it was decided to allow religious groups to apply their own laws, *if* everyone agreed to that beforehand. There's no question of UK law being subjugated by Sharia law, and I believe the judges are very careful to make sure there is no coercion. I also believe that (due to the low number of cases agreed to be heard under Sharia law) it's more of a sop to that particular community than anything else. Bottom line. It's helped the communities integrate better. Muslims are happier that they have the option to use that, but women (and I think this was a particular concern) have the right to request, privately with the judge, that Sharia law will not be used. Given that the judge can deny the request on the *suspicion* of coercion, it can never be blamed on the woman (if it indeed a woman as the accused party). All round, it reduces tension and was a net benefit, I think. Simon

• See what happens when you give women rights. Should have kept them in their respected kitchens, making their respected sandwiches. Now you have them beating on each other.

• &#64;Officer Pat: - It's not a straw-man argument, it's a direct quote of your own words. I don't believe you can serve due process within 24 hours of anyone committing murder. I don't believe that's fair or equitable. I don't believe that execution is ever justified, *especially* rapid-response execution. Given your comments, I think you might be more suited to the regime in China rather than any western system of jurisprudence. - The tasering references were pointing out other instances of summary injustice. I wasn't trying to put words into your mouth, and I apologise if it appeared that way. I think your own comments are sufficient to make my case. - I disagree with your characterization, FWIW. That's not being stern, that's being brutal. Only in a truly perfect system of justice, with no possibility of error could one even contemplate what you suggest, IMHO. In America today, if you're rich and can afford expensive lawyers, you get off or you get a much reduced sentence. That's not a great foundation for what you suggest. @Alexa: I think you're missing my point. It's not so much that I have problems with the representatives of authority, it's that I want limitations on what they can legally do. The USA conditions people from an early age (from the pledge of allegiance every day at school onwards) to respect the authority of government officials, such as the police. IMHO, that's simply wrong. There should be a healthy disrespect for government; there should be critical thinking of all aspects of internal country policy; there should be *higher* standards required of government officials than those of ordinary citizens. Let me put it another way: I have a lot more respect for the UK police than I do the US ones. I'm reasonably sure (because they're not armed, in general) that any UK policeman isn't going to freak out and shoot me (or electrocute me) . I don't have that confidence in the US police. I just don't, and the reason isn't xenophobia, it's not some "England is best" misplaced patriotism either; it's because I constantly read stories about US police shooting or tasing people. It's got to the state where I'm probably not going to stay in the USA. I'm here for the weather and for the money, but I can make just as much money in the UK or Europe, and I'm not sure the weather is a sufficiently good reason. I *like* having a pool in the back yard, and I like my job, but I'm not sure about the way this country is going - even your Democrats party would be considered raving right-wingers where I come from, the less said about the Republicans, the better. Oh yeah.. back to your points [grin] Perhaps your London-dwelling friends are not particularly polite ? I hesitate to invoke the stereotypical brash American abroad, but it's a possibility that we should consider. Having lived in London for 15 years or so before coming out to sunny CA, I think some further level of politeness might benefit the US - over and above the facile "have a nice day" that serves as "goodbye", that is. As for your being startled, I was using the example of the article... Of course you can offend people with less than torture, Gods! And the "perfect" comment was actually directed at Officer Pat's statement above. I'll quote, to avoid any misunderstanding: "Compared to Britain, our system is perfect". Simon.

• Simon: I wasn't clear, maybe. Is this a freedom-to-practice-religion issue? If not, what's the rationale?

• There's no need to point fingers. Our justice system is pretty weak too. The average murder sentence is 15 years. You get about the same amount of time for having crack. Apparently a human life is worth as much as a very crappy drug.

• Simon: I learned so much from your commentary, but I do have 1 question concerning the tribunals. It seems to be set up in such a way as to afford Muslim women protections. You mentioned exceptions for coercion, and that both parties must agree. So it seems to me that you guys are just making sure that the religious choices of Muslims (including Muslim women who wish to practice their religious customs) are respected. Would you say that this is the case?

• &#64;Officer Pat, agreed.

• Luke, your justice system is pathetically weak. Just the idea that Venables and Thompson were ever released, and the fact that it took one hell of a fight to keep Myra Hindley locked up for life (that should never have been a question), and even still she was almost moved to an open prison, and then this article's revelation that torturers get 3 to 5 years...your system sucks.

• Nice strawman, Simon. I suggest executing anyone convicted of murder (an eye for an eye) and you accuse me of wanting to tase soccer moms. Good one. It's pretty simple. You get convicted of murder one, and your life is over. As in, very, very soon. No more of this Tookie Williams shit where his victims' families had to put up with his annoying ass on death row for 26 years, or Mumia Abu Jamal is still alive three decades after killing a police officer in cold blood. The death penalty is so expensive because these thugs get free room and board and endless appeals for years. That shit's gotta end. I don't have an exact plan, but I'd suggest something along the lines of an automatic review by a panel of judges one week after the original conviction, and should it be upheld, the execution is the next morning. We have a justice system that is flawed, and its flawed because we value criminal rights over victims rights. The victims main right is to see their violators be punished. And for murderers, that means a quick yet fair execution. That's not being brutal; that's being stern. And if people know that they have a stern justice system looking down on them which won't give them years to weasel out of horrific crimes, I promise you, the amount of violent crimes in this country will plummet. But as it stands now, the murder rate is high because the corrections system simply isn't that frightening, making it a pretty weak deterrent.

• on the tazing thing? My opinion is: Seems there is a dispute as to which Holster he grabbed. Well, to fix that, then give up the gun or the tazer. The police in the US seem to have a mega belt on and is expected to know exactly what's on it and where it is. In a panic mode, i'm sure i couldn't find my own keys in my pocket much less reaching for a gun or tazer. But we assume the police NEVER crash in panic mode. They are professionals and expects and ... and mind readers. then you have the idiots who are power hungry and do whatever they want. From raping/making women "service" them, shooting someone accidentally, shooting a tazer at a innocent person. ect. The list is very long and i could go on and on. Bottomline is, if this cop in Oakland THOUGHT he was grabbing his tazer but grabbed the gun instead. Then there is a fault there somewhere. I have a lot of friends (close friends) who are cops. And i could never be one. To many assholes out there. As far as the punishment these women need (yeah these are not "youthful offenders) They should be prepared to accept the penalty that goes with the crime. They are hateful, selfish, little bitches and should be treated as such. WTF is this "youthful" crap? They are both 18 or older, right? that's an adult. Sentence them as Adults. On the Jame Bulger story: there was a short story (book) written while these two scumsucking punks were in "jail". Seems little james was molested by the one named Jon. There was also "proof' that he himself was sexually abused by the other kid. But i believe the story was "he was forced to do stuff!" This baby was hit, cut, dropped many times on his head, starved. and sexually molested. He was almost dead when the train cut him in half. So that was actually a blessing to end his pain and suffering. As youthful offenders they were released and given new idenities. Look where that got them! The other kid, so i have read, isn't even in that area anymore. and they said that Jon was the "quiet" one. Yeah goes to prove the quiet ones are the worst. Well, i believe the UK justice system is a little behind in times. They have had serial killers right under their noses as well. So they are not immuned to that level of violence. They did a gross injustice to this girl. And something will happen once they get out. Mark my words.

• My god, some of you Keyboard Warriors are extremely ignorant regarding the UK justice system and extremely smug about your own. Your society is a hell of a lot more screwed up than ours.

• &#64;Simon, I did add some qualifiers to my statement about homogeneity, namely, that it has been shrinking in modern times. I have not personally visited London, but I do have friends there, who blog about it and their observations are what inform me. Granted, the media in the UK is as prone to sensationalism as ours, but I think I can be forgiven for relying on them to some degree for the news. Aside from blogs, such as TCR, there aren't many other options. I'm sorry to learn that there aren't surveillance cameras on every street corner. I want them here because it would make me feel safer. Politeness, when over-indulged, forces acceptance of noxious behaviours for fear of expressing any reprobation against them, should they be in fact a cultural custom previously unknown. And, it is a complaint my London dwelling friends have expressed more than a few times. I find it startling, honestly, that you leap to the staggering extreme of using torture as an example of something the painfully polite would stop being polite about. Uh, I should hope so. Well thanks for clearing up the difference between courts and tribunals. Be that as it may, it means Sharia has received official sanction where it will continue to oppress women most especially. That is not the way of the UK, and it is an alarming development. I will draw the conclusion that certain positions of authority are very troubling to you and you do not trust their representatives as a matter of personal policy. Very well. As you say, just my opinion....

• But...they did this over an ex? But...he's not even with you anymore!

• &#64;Simon, well I'm sorry you think Officer Pat has said something untoward, because in context, what he opines is well within reason. But you might have to read more of what he has elsewhere commented in order to believe me. I'm sorry but I must disagree with you concerning the Taser. It was never advertised, incidentally, as non-lethal. It is less than lethal. And it is certainly less lethal than a gun. The officer was attempting to compel the man to stop resisting. They are allowed to deploy a Taser to do so. He was within reason to try that, but, tragically, he picked the wrong holster. Concerning arming citizens, I'm sorry you don't trust people but it is happening nonetheless. In America, we have a Constitutional right to bear arms and we will do so. The vast majority of our gun owners are *not* accidentally shooting anyone, *not* using it to kill in an argument, *not* mowing down fellow humans pell-mell. But they don't get nearly the same attention as the comparatively few who do. I can agree with you concering "plea bargaining." Actual delivery of justice has been reduced to contract negotiation. It is completely wrong and leaves out all the other parties with vested interest in the good faith performance of the contract, if you will. You didn't hear me claim our system is perfect. It is closer to perfect in comparison to the UK's. Let me rephrase my question: Is it as acceptable to allow a guilty murderer go free, someone who has already killed at least once, Mel Ignato jumps to mind as a real world example, who then executes another innocent person, without extending to them the due process he received? I did not include the police nor should they be included as a group. I am speaking about individuals, regardless of any groups they may be members of. Whoa. You have commented further while I was composing my comment, and so now I will read further.

• Ha ha England...

• &#64;Alexa: [sigh] I have to ask, have you ever visited London, or the UK ? Some of your comments are quite wide of the mark... - Homogeneity: London is pretty darn diverse - some 30% of the population is non-white, and ~50% of the population is foreign-born. It's a major crossroads to Europe and beyond, and has been for several hundred years. Other cities have their own characteristics, but Birmingham (the 2nd largest city) is ~40% muslim, for example. I could go on... - The surveillance cameras are overblown by media looking for readers. The vast majority are the exact same cameras in any town, privately owned, located in shops, service-station forecourts, ATMs etc. The small number owned and operated by the police/government are mainly traffic cameras, although there are some in public places as well (Oxford St.. for example). I'm not denying their existence, I'm just conscious that I see as many cameras every day in SF as I did in London... - I'd like to see your elaboration on how politeness dissolves standards. In my experience, it tends to reinforce standards of behavior and therefore the expected behavior of others. I think you'd find there are plenty of people willing to "offend" you, if you do something hideously wrong, for example torturing someone for 18 hours. - Sharia law. These "courts" are actually not courts at all, they're tribunals. In order to be bound by the tribunal, both parties have to request that the tribunal is binding by law, in person, to a judge. That judge is tasked with making sure there has been no coercion involved. If the judge believes there may have been coercion (even if both parties deny that), it is within his/her power to deny the request to make a ruling binding by law. - I'd rather have judges wearing "freaky wigs" (which are after all just a reminder to all present that the judge is empowered to judge them), than "officers" shooting people dead in the streets. Just my opinion, of course. Simon

• &#64;Alexa: No, I've not read any more of what "Officer Pat" has written. What he wrote above is blood-curdlingly abhorrent enough, thanks. He's describing summary execution above - an 8-cent bullet to the brain by the next sunrise is hardly what I'd consider to be due process. Re: Oakland - a taser is a lethal weapon, with many reported deaths despite the company exerting pressure to stop coroners reporting them as such. You don't pull a taser out to use it unless you would otherwise shoot the offending suspect. There is no excuse for what that officer did. None at all. As for arming all civilians, I don't trust most people (in the USA or elsewhere) to drive a car properly. I certainly wouldn't give them a weapon that, in a moment of temper, would kill or maim others for life. Frankly, the idea is baffling, especially considering just how many gun-related homicides there are per capita in the US compared to the UK. America may have the same *principle* of letting the guilty go free vs imprisoning an innocent man, but their *application* is lacking. As I alluded to above, the whole 'plea-bargaining' idea is fundamentally opposed to that principle, and undermines the entire system. The corollary of plea-bargaining is that sentences get more severe, so that after "discounts" on the sentences, they're still a deterrent to doing the crime. This is a vicious circle, and America is circling the drain in this regard. And this system is supposed to be "perfect" ? Give me a break. I'm afraid I don't understand your last question as written. If, however, you're asking whether it's more acceptable to let a guilty killer kill again than to summarily have "police" execute suspects on-the-spot, then yes, quite clearly, it is. You don't subject the entire citizenry to a police-state with sanctioned murder by police, in order to imprison a killer who may or may not kill again. Neither choice is what I'd call "good", but IMHO there's a clear winner in which of the two is worst. Simon

• Pete, as I understand it, the bobbies are still largely un-armed themselves, and tend to receive more sensitivity and de-escalation training. They have tended to be more homogeneous until the relatively recent past, in their overall society and customs, though that is clearly increasingly in flux. Generally, greater homogeneity makes establishment of standards and compliance thereto more frictionless. That's neither here nor there, just a factor, not too different from Japan. The UK being considerably smaller than the US, their logistical challenges are smaller in magnitude. That makes it easier for them to respond more quickly, though, they are not exactly famous for swift changes in government, to put it mildly. And I believe they use surveillance cameras throughout London, and I would assume other large cities, with great alacrity. To great advantage for all parties concerned, except of course, for the criminals. That said, they are hide-bound polite to a severe fault, exposing them to near suicidal levels of dissolution of standards, and tolerance for the blazingly intolerable, merely because they don't want to offend. I now recall, as well, that a judge there ruled that a Sharia court could have jurisdiction over cases involving Muslims. In the UK. Seriously. I would imagine that a fair number of Muslim women were crestfallen by the news. They were so close to enjoying some of the protections other UK women have become accustomed to, and then their hopes were dashed. By some boneheaded judge in a freaky wig.

• Tell me about their differences in police tactics, Alexa. I don't really know about that.

TotalComments: 100