Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I don't think that most people who would sexually assault a child, will really give a second thought to the punishment. If anything, they'd be more likely to try and "dispose" of any evidence. I'll say it again, it's nothing more than revenge, stop calling it justice.
Lots of different views, which is fair enough. But for the record, it has been shown time and again that capital punishment does not work as a deterrent. The US is a very good example. Plenty of states execute people, as Virginia did this week, but they have one of the highest murder rates in the world.
Well Keef you could use the same logic for just about any other set of criminals - but I actually think that someone is going to think twice before they carry out they kiddie fiddling with the thought of now having their head cut off in public. For instance has Gary Glitter been seen sunning himself in Saudi recently... no of course not he goes to the Far East where he did believe it would just be a slap on the wrists if he was caught. That is the logic. Revenge / justice what ever you call it is not the key issue - stiffer the sentence the greater the deterrent for all crimes.

Your one fallback matthew seems to be the deterrence value, but it simply isnt.

For instance murder, if you're rational you won't do it, if you do it cold bloodedly its because you think you'll get away with it and if it's passion, drug psychosis or mental illness then, well you can guess the rest yourself.


Deterrence is 6 points on your licence and losing your job as a rep. Capital punishment has been proved time and again to have little or no deterrent value.

If you just think the man should die because what he did was horrible and wrong or even evil then I totally understand where you're coming from (though I'm always opposed to state sponsored murder full stop on principle) but give the deterrence thing a rest.

I agree with Mockney that it does not necessarily deter. It does seem very extreme and I'm not so thrilled about the idea of them being so savage about it. However, it seems like quite a nice change from the typical UK system where paedophiles don't necessarily even get jailed at all and they invariably get relatively lenient sentences. If a serial shoplifter goes to jail, gets released and shoplifts his little heart out again and again and again, it's not a great result but it is most certainly not the end of the world. But paedophiles raping little kids - we simply can't play around when it comes to that. It has to be prevented. At any cost, I guess.

"the typical UK system where paedophiles don't necessarily even get jailed at all and they invariably get relatively lenient sentences"


I don't think this is true, particularly since the introduction of indeterminate sentences. This perception may be caused by the tendency of newspapers to report the minimum term that must be served before parole is considered, without highlighting that the vast majority will serve far longer than that.

"the typical UK system where paedophiles don't necessarily even get jailed at all and they invariably get relatively lenient sentences"


I think this is very true and whilst I also agree that the papers usually report the minimum term an offender could face, the fact is although some do go on to serve longer, many don't and under current regulation only half the a sentence is served automatically. In my opinion sentences are way to leniant for this crime that can effect victims for life and indeed lead them into crime caused by the trauma of the offence.


Capital punishment in the form of beheading and crucifixtion is a detterant, but its not acceptable in OUR culture, can we really comment on whether its acceptable or effective over in Saudi Arabia?

Iain - I'm not sure that Saudi Arabia are that forthcoming with statistical analysis of their criminal justice system so it would be difficult to debate that particular regime with full knowledge of the facts. However it is possible to review places like the the US and demonstrate that capital punishment does not provide a deterrent. It is also possible to demonstrate in other places, like parts of the Carribean. I don't have any of the studies to hand now but read quite a lot when I was practising and studying law.


It has been widely accepted by the legal profession and some governments (of the western world) for a while that capital punishment doesnt work as a deterrent. It would be interesting to see a true analysis of places like Saudi or China but I've never read one - perhaps another forumite will have done or will have more up to date information than I do?

I'd have thougght that an individual willing to rape and murder children may be too "far gone" to even think about what punishment he'll get when he's caught. Surely if child rape and murder is what you do for kicks, you're not that rational, balanced etc in the first place?

Criminality in Saudi covers many activities that are legal elsewhere: for example, wearing a cross in public, the consumption of non-medicinal alcohol or pork products, the possession of non-Muslim religious texts, videos of any unauthorised material, un-expurgated western glossy magazines, private satellite dishes, insurance policies, interest bearing securities, revealing bare flesh in public, eating or drinking anything during daylight hours in the month of Ramadan, women drivers, homosexuality (both sexes), apostasy, failure to pray at prescribed times, etc, etc.


My last visit to Saudi was in the early eighties. The death penalty for Muslim-to-Muslim alcohol supply was first declared while I was there. At that time the Saudi customs service was battling large-scale smuggling of alcohol and other prohibited items such as narcotics/stimulants, pornography, foreign prostitutes, western videos, weapons, etc. The criminal police force was swamped by crimes of theft and violence by foreign workers (including a case of cannibalism). The local newspapers were full of wanted notices for foreign workers who had disappeared from their jobs, usually with large sums of money.


Amongst Saudi nationals, the crime rate appeared much lower: mainly domestic or interpersonal violence, crimes of passion or honour, homosexuality, adultery or fornication and some alcohol and drug related offences. Deaths caused by road traffic accidents were said to be amongst the highest in the world.


I'll leave it to the reader to decide whether the world's strictest implementation of Sharia Law acted as an effective deterrent.

localgirlwithdreads Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'd have thougght that an individual willing to

> rape and murder children may be too "far gone" to

> even think about what punishment he'll get when

> he's caught. Surely if child rape and murder is

> what you do for kicks, you're not that rational,

> balanced etc in the first place?


Exactly!

I'm not advocating the introduction of Saudi Arabian law into this country as much of it seems to be corrupt, i.e. buying off victims. I just find it surprising people don't consider the barbaric act of chopping someone's head off in public (for this type of Saudi crime) not to be more of a deterrent than a prison sentence.


The only studies worth the paper they are written on are those with crime statistics since the introduction of draconian punishments, and it seems from Hal's post that it has been a success in at least other types of crimes.

Criminologists seem to think that sentences are not much of a deterrent if there's not much chance of getting caught. If there's a high chance of getting caught then people start worrying about the punishment. Unfortunately certain crimes in Britain seem to have a low detection or conviction rate and therefore it doesn't matter what the sentence is. And there's some crimes which people commit because they aren't thinking of the sentence when committing them (e.g. a lot of murders are like this).


So, sentences of crucifiction and beheading are probably only an effective deterrent if there's a high chance of getting caught. They are probably more of a statement of revenge against the transgressor than anything else.


I would say that you would have to do something pretty bad for your crime to be more morally repulsive than the act of beheading or crucifying someone.

This makes me feel uncomfortable


Sometimes to understand these punishments we should perhaps try to picture the crime that has taken place.


Picture a 3 year old child being raped.


The victim here is receiving a much more humane death than than he inflicted on a toddler who was raped and left to die in the desert. This boy was 3 years old when he died. His rape screams were heard by noone - no doubt suffering post trauma stress, he was then left to die of thirst in the desert - his family will never recover, they have a life sentence of grief.


Anyone who has a 3 year old child would not be able to contemplate such a horrible thing happening to an innocent child.


This murderer is being sedated (if Hal is correct) and beheaded - he does not have any sympathy from me. I'd rather he was jailed for life, I don't agree with the death penalty, but it is a quicker death than the slow death he has inflicted on this innocent toddler.


In the UK we distance ourselves from the crime and look at the punishment in terms of a legal debate taking place in a cosy courtroom or a cosy forum. This puts the criminal at an advantage as the crimes are so far from peoples mindset that we do not try to engage our minds in what horrors may have happened.


This sword will stop other toddlers being raped and killed. Picture a child being raped, you are there and you hold the sword. Do you give this guy another chance. Most people will kill him to save the child. The executioner is saving other children.


In the UK the same crime is treated as an illness and often these people are "treated" and released into society. Some commit the same crimes again. This "makes me feel uncomfortable". But I feel no discomfort for the man who committed this crime and his fate.

Unfortunately Keef, life does not mean life. In the UK they do get out - and they do reoffend.


I'm against the death penalty, but for peodophiles, life should mean life. Its the worst crime I can think of. If the saudis want to kill this guy, as he has raped a number of children, I have no sympathy.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...