One for the anti death penalty brigade

[New Corrie]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/7412593.stm

The life of an innocent shopkeeper may well have been saved if we had the death penalty, instead 20 years of Sky TV and drugs awaits this repeat murderer.

[Phil D. Rolls]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/7412593.stm

The life of an innocent shopkeeper may well have been saved if we had the death penalty, instead 20 years of Sky TV and drugs awaits this repeat murderer.

Yada yada yada. No-one is saying that it is a good thing to kill, in fact that is one of the central arguments against the death penalty.

If you can prove that the existence of a death penalty actually deters people from committing murder (try quoting stats from the USA for example) then you might be going somewhere with your argument. As it stands, all you are showing is the same knee jerk reaction that saw innocent people like Derek Bentley hanged, and the likes of the Guildford Four banged up for something they didn't do (if people like you had their way, they'd be dead as well).

One last thing - hanging the murderer doesn't bring the victim back.

I might be missing something though, if anyone can tell me what the death penalty achieves other than revenge, I may change my point of view.

At least I've thought about it though.

[hibsboy90]

Just finished a dissertation on the death penalty. And i agree that people like above deserve it. However my personal view is against it, as the value we attribute to life is poor. It holds no detterent value. A foolproof system,and i'll hang 'em for you.:devil:

[Phil D. Rolls]

Just finished a dissertation on the death penalty. And i agree that people like above deserve it. However my personal view is against it, as the value we attribute to life is poor. A foolproof system,and i'll hang 'em for you.:devil:

Don't know if you saw the recent documentary done by Michael Portillo. he was trying to find a humane, fool proof death penalty. They came up with one, that actually had the victim in a state of euphoria before death.

That wasn't enough for some though, as they believed the person should suffer. Where is the Christian value in that?

[New Corrie]

Yada yada yada. No-one is saying that it is a good thing to kill, in fact that is one of the central arguments against the death penalty.

If you can prove that the existence of a death penalty actually deters people from committing murder (try quoting stats from the USA for example) then you might be going somewhere with your argument. As it stands, all you are showing is the same knee jerk reaction that saw innocent people like Derek Bentley hanged, and the likes of the Guildford Four banged up for something they didn't do (if people like you had their way, they'd be dead as well).

One last thing - hanging the murderer doesn't bring the victim back.
I might be missing something though, if anyone can tell me what the death penalty achieves other than revenge, I may change my point of view.

At least I've thought about it though.

If they had hung him first time around the shopkeeper would be still alive.

[hibsboy90]

Don't know if you saw the recent documentary done by Michael Portillo. he was trying to find a humane, fool proof death penalty. They came up with one, that actually had the victim in a state of euphoria before death.

That wasn't enough for some though, as they believed the person should suffer. Where is the Christian value in that?
There is none. I'm of the same view as yourself. Great place for stats etc is here (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/FactSheet.pdf).

[McSwanky]

If they had hung him first time around the shopkeeper would be still alive.

If they had hung the numerous people who have been wrongly convicted then they wouldn't still be alive.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Phil D. Rolls]

If they had hung him first time around the shopkeeper would be still alive.

True, but you're hardly making a compelling case for the death penalty. Off the top of my head, life in prison would have the same effect.

Any other points to make, or is it case closed?

[lyonhibs]

The death penalty is a toughie. Does it lower "us" as a society to their level?? Well, assuming the death penalty is legal, and the criminal ended the life of a innocent victim in such a absolutely brutal way as above, then no it technically doesn't IMO, as very simply we wouldn't be breaking the rules we'd established as a society, whereas as some absolute ****bag that had murdered someone quite clearly has.

What possible right does the man in question, and anyone that is found beyond doubt - which should be easier to do with the advances in CSI style DNA technology etc etc - to have committed cold blooded murder (and I'd extent it to paedophilic rape, but that's just a personal point of view) have to a cushty life in jail at the taxpayers expense (and a lot of jail time these days is relatively cushty to what I would consider jail time that would have genuinely punitive effects on a prisoner - i.e. no tv's, no abundance of computers/pool tables everywhere).

He (or she as the case may be) has transgressed pretty much the only line in the bible I agree with - "Thou shalt not kill" and at the same time violated every responsibilty to civilised society that is imputed to him/her in this "rights and responsibilities" balance we have.

However, the problems arise with the death penalty at the margins - i.e. where there are even the remotest vagaries or uncertaintity about guilt. The numbers of people getting off on such noncey charges as "accidental manslaughter" (oh, honestly Guv, I just meant to rough him up a bit by thrusting a kitchen knife into his midriff), "clinical insanity" (effectively just get your lawyer to make sure you're good at playing "gaa-gaa" for the court) or the worst of all, reduced charges becuase the perpertrator of the crime admitted guilt (as if this somehow lessened the severity of the crime in the first place, and absolved the criminal from having to face the fullest penalty applicable to his/her crime) are bad enough as it is.

Imagine if the ultimate penalty for murder was as final as the death penalty - you'd get all manner of filth claiming that they were sure the gun was loaded with blanks, or that they conveniently had a uncontrollable fit just at the time when they were holding the knife to the victims neck.

I'm as liberal as they come on certain topics, but the current abonimable state of the "perpetrator vs victim" balance in our present-day justice system is not one of them.

In all honestly, if you asked the British public, "in murder cases where guilt is either admitted or can be proven beyond doubt by concrete scientific proof, would you support an investigation into the feasibility of the reintroduction of the death penalty" the majority would give their support, IMO.

[New Corrie]

True, but you're hardly making a compelling case for the death penalty. Off the top of my head, life in prison would have the same effect.

Any other points to make, or is it case closed?


We don't do life in prison here, he served 9 years first time round and get's sentenced to 20 years of SKY TV second time round. Where is the justice in that? I think the link is a compelling case for the death penalty, you obviously don't.

[Phil D. Rolls]

In all honestly, if you asked the British public, "in murder cases where guilt is either admitted or can be proven beyond doubt by concrete scientific proof, would you support an investigation into the feasibility of the reintroduction of the death penalty" the majority would give their support, IMO.

Some good points mate. I wouldn't ask the public unless they could prove they had a full understanding of the issues involved.

After all, the public were instrumental in having it removed in the first place. What troubles me is that the public are all for it, but can never give me satisfactory answers to some of the nagging doubts that persist.

Taking it further it was in response to "public pressure" (ie votes) that the then Home Secretary ordered the execution of Derek Bentley, for a murder he did not commit - he didn't fire the gun, and wasn't in the same place that the murder was committed.

I think people should watch films like "Let Him Have It" and "Dead Man Walking", and then say whether they are comfortable with the Death Penalty.

[Phil D. Rolls]

We don't do life in prison here, he served 9 years first time round and get's sentenced to 20 years of SKY TV second time round. Where is the justice in that? I think the link is a compelling case for the death penalty, you obviously don't.

I'm afraid I don't think it's a compelling case. The murder rate in countries and states which have the Death Penalty is usually higher than those that don't. I would argue - without any firm evidence admittedly - that the very presence of capital punishment in a society, brutalises all those in it.

I think there are all sorts of measures, short of hanging the guy, which would have prevented the shop keeper being murdered. My problem with the Death Penalty, is that society has no more right to terminate a life than the individual.

On top of that, can you trust the police - infinite miscarriages of justice would suggest otherwise.

Given the number of things that can go wrong, I would prefer to err on the side of caution. Surely the wrongful execution of someone is as big a crime as murder - if not bigger?

[AndyP]

Some good points mate. I wouldn't ask the public unless they could prove they had a full understanding of the issues involved.

After all, the public were instrumental in having it removed in the first place. What troubles me is that the public are all for it, but can never give me satisfactory answers to some of the nagging doubts that persist.

Taking it further it was in response to "public pressure" (ie votes) that the then Home Secretary ordered the execution of Derek Bentley, for a murder he did not commit - he didn't fire the gun, and wasn't in the same place that the murder was committed.

I think people should watch films like "Let Him Have It" and "Dead Man Walking", and then say whether they are comfortable with the Death Penalty.


Bentley WAS at the scene and according to the law at that time was as guilty as the person who killed the policeman, now personally I doubt Bentley would have gone to the gallows IF a policeman hadn't been the victim.

Oh and I believe that you're also incorrect in stating that public pressure forced David Maxwell Ffyfe to deny clemency, in fact public opinion was very much on Bentleys side (as were a good number of MPs who petitioned the then HS to take the case to the Queen) and it is probably this case and the hanging of Ruth Ellis that led to the groundswell of public distaste for the death penalty

[Pretty Boy]

Yet again the liberal, friendly face of the modern Conservative supporter shines through.

The death penalty is an outdated, inhumane form of punishment and has yet to be proven to work as a deterrent. The USA has the death penalty both Federally and in individual states and yet still has one of the highest rates of violent crime and homicide in the world.

As a punishment for murder i fail to see the logic, you killed another person which is wrong but if we kill you because a judge says so it's okay, sorry regardless of that person being a murderer that is hypocritical to the extreme. Surely that is what sets us apart as a reasonable and just society, that we are more logical thinkers than those who kill, whether as a crime of passion or indiscriminately. It is, IMO, one of the great triumphs of the UK that we have seen capital punishment as having no place in the 21st century world and have outlawed it accordingly.

Thirdly, whilst this mans death is undeniably a tragedy to use it as a propaganda piece to make a case for the death penalty is low, does anyone know the victims views on the death penalty? Is it possible he wouldn't want his unfortunate death to be used as a tool to support something he perhaps opposed? This stinks to high heavens of hysteria and knee jerk reactions which surface from time to time but which hopefully never gain enough support to become a serious political issue.

Longer and tougher prison sentences for murderers, rapist and violent criminals i am sure no one would argue with and rightly so, but the death penalty i hope as a society we have moved past this archaic practice.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Bentley WAS at the scene and according to the law at that time was as guilty as the person who killed the policeman, now personally I doubt Bentley would have gone to the gallows IF a policeman hadn't been the victim.

Oh and I believe that you're also incorrect in stating that public pressure forced David Maxwell Ffyfe to deny clemency, in fact public opinion was very much on Bentleys side (as were a good number of MPs who petitioned the then HS to take the case to the Queen) and it is probably this case and the hanging of Ruth Ellis that led to the groundswell of public distaste for the death penalty

He was at the scene, in as much as he was being held in a stairwell, whilst his mate was on the roof. He couldn't see the policeman - yet the law said he was a murderer. So that's all right then?

So DMF was a bigger erchie than I first thought? Ludovic Kennedy's book suggested that (misguided as he clearly was) Fyffe thought that he had to send a "get tough" message. Why would a politician do that?

Anyway - the point remains. The death penalty hasn't been used correctly, unless you are saying it was right to hang a man with a mental age of 12, who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?

[steakbake]

If you're that keen on the death penalty, then vote for a party who wants to bring it back. Might I suggest the BNP would be your first option? Kilroy-Silk wanted to bring it back but he was sunk by the unpopularity of his rabid right wing policies.

When asked directly about it on the single issue, it seems that a majority of people get misty eyed at the prospect of the sound of the drop and snapping neck and revel in the bloodbath of an eye for an eye - as if that will bring the victim back.

Mix it in with other policies, and it is way down on people's list. If it was towards the top of a vast number of people's agendas in this country and others, you might find more reputable political parties looking into it but until then, it's a basketcase of an issue that only the truly sadistic would state as top of their political wish list.

[alex plode]

True, but you're hardly making a compelling case for the death penalty. Off the top of my head, life in prison would have the same effect.

Any other points to make, or is it case closed?

Life imprisonment would have the same effect , unless of course the prisoner escaped and killed again...http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/nov/20/ukcrime.prisonsandprobation

Britains longest serving prisoner was actually sentenced to death but escaped and killed his third child victim - 5yr old Linda Bowyer would still be alive if the death penalty was around. Miscarriages of justice are always raised in debates about the death penalty but with todays developments in science, there's no reason why evidence of guilt in crimes of a certain nature or by repeat offenders can't be watertight .

Main reason for death penalty is financial.
There are some people so evil who have committed crimes so heinous, and who show no hope of remorse or rehabilitation, that it's simply a waste of money keeping them in a comfortable lifestyle.
I'm sure you can think of the examples I'm thinking of.

That said...this is all hypothetical since the UK signed away the right to the death penalty when we joined the EU. It will never happen - rightly or wrongly.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Life imprisonment would have the same effect , unless of course the prisoner escaped and killed again...http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/nov/20/ukcrime.prisonsandprobation

Britains longest serving prisoner was actually sentenced to death but escaped and killed his third child - 5yr old Linda Bowyer would still be alive if the death penalty are always raised in debates about the death penalty but with todays developments in science, there's no reason why evidence of guilt in crimes of a certain nature or by repeat offenders can't be watertight .

Main reason for death penalty is financial.
There are some people so evil who have committed crimes so heinous, and who show no hope of remorse or rehabilitation, that it's simply a waste of money keeping them in a comfortable lifestyle.
I'm sure you can think of the examples I'm thinking of.

That said...this is all hypothetical since the UK signed away the right to the death penalty when we joined the EU. It will never happen - rightly or wrongly.

Some people cannot be rehabilitated. I just think that the danger the Death Penalty would pose to innocent people is a greater worry than keeping these abominations away from public view.

[alex plode]

[quote=Filled Rolls;1619384]I'm afraid I don't think it's a compelling case. The murder rate in countries and states which have the Death Penalty is usually higher than those that don't. I would argue - without any firm evidence admittedly - that the very presence of capital punishment in a society, brutalises all those in it.

Whilst I doubt the death penalty is actually much of a deterrant , two countries with the lowest murder rates in the world retain it - one of them being perceived by many as one of the most civilized countries in the world.
You can make statistics work in many ways.

[Phil D. Rolls]

[quote=Filled Rolls;1619384]I'm afraid I don't think it's a compelling case. The murder rate in countries and states which have the Death Penalty is usually higher than those that don't. I would argue - without any firm evidence admittedly - that the very presence of capital punishment in a society, brutalises all those in it.

Whilst I doubt the death penalty is actually much of a deterrant , two countries with the lowest murder rates in the world retain it - one of them being perceived by many as one of the most civilized countries in the world.
You can make statistics work in many ways.

Fair dos. I'll accept there are other factors that influence the rate of murder in a country.

[steakbake]

Life imprisonment would have the same effect , unless of course the prisoner escaped and killed again...http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/nov/20/ukcrime.prisonsandprobation

Britains longest serving prisoner was actually sentenced to death but escaped and killed his third child - 5yr old Linda Bowyer would still be alive if the death penalty are always raised in debates about the death penalty but with todays developments in science, there's no reason why evidence of guilt in crimes of a certain nature or by repeat offenders can't be watertight .

Main reason for death penalty is financial.
There are some people so evil who have committed crimes so heinous, and who show no hope of remorse or rehabilitation, that it's simply a waste of money keeping them in a comfortable lifestyle.
I'm sure you can think of the examples I'm thinking of.

That said...this is all hypothetical since the UK signed away the right to the death penalty when we joined the EU. It will never happen - rightly or wrongly.

Sorry, but that is incorrect - the death penalty was suspended in the UK (but not in the North of Ireland) in the 1965 Murder Act. It was formally abolished in 1969 and in the North of Ireland in 1973.

The ECHR (Convention on Human Rights) was a document that the UK became a signatory to in the Council of Europe in May 1949, which is NOT the same as the EU.

The UK joined the EU in 1974 - an entirely separate entity.

The subsequent amendments to ECHR means that the death penalty cannot be reinstated. Its not like those pesky Europeans told us to stop judicially killing people.

The facts are perhaps more complicated than your average "Daily Mail" type hack can get his head round, though the "EU made us do it" is a convenient catchphrase.

[alex plode]

Some people cannot be rehabilitated. I just think that the danger the Death Penalty would pose to innocent people is a greater worry than keeping these abominations away from public view.

Exactly...if rehabilitation isn't going to work - with tightening up of evidenece coupled with being very selective which crimes merit death - eg repeat offenders, multiple rape & murder - then it begins to make sense.

Glad to see you're coming round to the other side of the argument. :wink:

[McSwanky]

Whilst I doubt the death penalty is actually much of a deterrant , two countries with the lowest murder rates in the world retain it - one of them being perceived by many as one of the most civilized countries in the world.
You can make statistics work in many ways.

Out of interest, which 2 countries are those?

[Phil D. Rolls]

Exactly...if rehabilitation isn't going to work - with tightening up of evidenece coupled with being very selective which crimes merit death - eg repeat offenders, multiple rape & murder - then it begins to make sense.

Glad to see you're coming round to the other side of the argument. :wink:

Not at all, but I am prepared to give up that strand of my argument.

Do you trust the police and the court system to get it right?

Do you trust the public - who would lynch people without a trial? Not going to happen is it?

[alex plode]

Sorry, but that is incorrect - the death penalty was suspended in the UK (but not in the North of Ireland) in the 1965 Murder Act. It was formally abolished in 1969 and in the North of Ireland in 1973.

The ECHR (Convention on Human Rights) was a document that the UK became a signatory to in the Council of Europe in May 1949, which is NOT the same as the EU.

The UK joined the EU in 1974 - an entirely separate entity.

The subsequent amendments to ECHR means that the death penalty cannot be reinstated. Its not like those pesky Europeans told us to stop judicially killing people.

The facts are perhaps more complicated than your average "Daily Mail" type hack can get his head round, though the "EU made us do it" is a convenient catchphrase.

Yes ..I was typing too fast ...it's is when we signed one of the protocols of the European Convention on Human Rights in the late 90's that the last vestiges of capital punishment were abolished in Britain, never to return. Well spotted.

[New Corrie]

If you're that keen on the death penalty, then vote for a party who wants to bring it back. Might I suggest the BNP would be your first option? Kilroy-Silk wanted to bring it back but he was sunk by the unpopularity of his rabid right wing policies.

When asked directly about it on the single issue, it seems that a majority of people get misty eyed at the prospect of the sound of the drop and snapping neck and revel in the bloodbath of an eye for an eye - as if that will bring the victim back.

Mix it in with other policies, and it is way down on people's list. If it was towards the top of a vast number of people's agendas in this country and others, you might find more reputable political parties looking into it but until then, it's a basketcase of an issue that only the truly sadistic would state as top of their political wish list.


Such a typical pompous and sanctimonious attitude. Linking death penalty supporters with the BNP and Kilroy. As someone rightly pointed out, it's neither here nor there, as along with most other things, our right to restore it vanished when got involved in that god forsaken EU. We just have to resign ourselves to the fact that forever more we will be run by these Liberal, wooly Pinkos giving no thought to the victims of crime and trying to make life as easy as possible for the perpetrators of crime.

[steakbake]

Yes ..I was typing too fast ...it's is when we signed one of the protocols of the European Convention on Human Rights in the late 90's that the last vestiges of capital punishment were abolished in Britain, never to return. Well spotted.

The 13th Protocol!

Unlucky for some!! :wink::wink:

[alex plode]

Not at all, but I am prepared to give up that strand of my argument.

Do you trust the police and the court system to get it right?

Do you trust the public - who would lynch people without a trial? Not going to happen is it?

The public will lynch people without trial whether we have the death penalty or not, in fact there's an argument the lynch mob would leave mob-rule to the courts if stiffer punishment was in place.

The police will always be accused of corruption and the courts can only judge on evidence presented. All I'm saying is in some crimes, there is very little room for doubt.
Anyone think Peter Sutcliffe's innocent ?

[alex plode]

The 13th Protocol!

Unlucky for some!! :wink::wink:

It was the 6th protocol :wink:

[alex plode]

Out of interest, which 2 countries are those?

Saudi & Japan

[steakbake]

Such a typical pompous and sanctimonious attitude. Linking death penalty supporters with the BNP and Kilroy. As someone rightly pointed out, it's neither here nor there, as along with most other things, our right to restore it vanished when got involved in that god forsaken EU. We just have to resign ourselves to the fact that forever more we will be run by these Liberal, wooly Pinkos giving no thought to the victims of crime and trying to make life as easy as possible for the perpetrators of crime.

No - once again. Nothing pompous or sanctimonious.

The only political party who stand for elections in the UK at present who support the death penalty are the BNP. It's a fact. Nothing to do with linking death penalty fans with anyone. If you want it, thats who you have to vote for.

"Our right to restore it vanished" when we signed the 13th Protocol as Alexplode conceded above which is part of the ECHR. ECHR comes from the Council of Europe, set up in 49. Not from the EU which we joined - rightly or wrongly - in 73 - sorry, I said 74 above.

It was the 13th though: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/jul/18death.htm

[steakbake]

No - once again. Nothing pompous or sanctimonious.

The only political party who stand for elections in the UK at present who support the death penalty are the BNP. It's a fact. Nothing to do with linking death penalty fans with anyone. If you want it, thats who you have to vote for.

"Our right to restore it vanished" when we signed the 13th Protocol as Alexplode conceded above which is part of the ECHR. ECHR comes from the Council of Europe, set up in 49. Not from the EU which we joined - rightly or wrongly - in 73 - sorry, I said 74 above.

It was the 13th though: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/jul/18death.htm

http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/Treaties/Html/114.htm

hahah and the 6th. Presumably the 6th was first, but when it comes to European bureaucracy, you can never be sure!! :hnet:

[hibsdaft]

If they had hung the numerous people who have been wrongly convicted then they wouldn't still be alive.

:agree:

for me its not about whether people like the murderer in the original post deserve to live or die - for me it comes down to the fact that the justice system will never be watertight, and theres no way back from hanging an innocent man.

if the culprit in this case had been jailed for life he'd not of been able to kill this victim.

note that the victims brother states that the sentence brings closure for him and he is not calling for the culprit to be hung.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Such a typical pompous and sanctimonious attitude. Linking death penalty supporters with the BNP and Kilroy. As someone rightly pointed out, it's neither here nor there, as along with most other things, our right to restore it vanished when got involved in that god forsaken EU. We just have to resign ourselves to the fact that forever more we will be run by these Liberal, wooly Pinkos giving no thought to the victims of crime and trying to make life as easy as possible for the perpetrators of crime.
Apart from the rest of the thread, (I think 'BlackSaltire' and 'foreverhibs' have pretty much covered any point I would have made), the emboldened part speaks volumes about the attempts contemporary Right to image any vaguely liberal/left idea as somehow elitist. It is simultaneously hilarious and singularly worrying.

[Steve-O]

If they had hung him first time around the shopkeeper would be still alive.

Do you really believe he would be hung for culpable homicide?

Culpable homicide is committed where the accused has caused loss of life through wrongful conduct, but where there was no intention to kill or 'wicked recklessness' [1] . It is an offence under Common Law and is roughly equivalent to the offence of manslaughter in English law.

He only received a 10 year sentence so even if the death penalty did exist, he wouldn't have got it. Therefore, your argument doesn't stand up.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Such a typical pompous and sanctimonious attitude. Linking death penalty supporters with the BNP and Kilroy. As someone rightly pointed out, it's neither here nor there, as along with most other things, our right to restore it vanished when got involved in that god forsaken EU. We just have to resign ourselves to the fact that forever more we will be run by these Liberal, wooly Pinkos giving no thought to the victims of crime and trying to make life as easy as possible for the perpetrators of crime.

If you were to avoid knee jerk, emotive responses and construct an argument based on some semblance of logic, then people might start to see your point of view.

As it stands you just come across as a gorblimey string em up type, who hasn't given the subject much thought at all. It's all very well wanting to kill people in the name of justice, but can you address some of the concerns that people have regarding miscarriages of justice.

I don't expect you to go into the deeper moral arguments at this stage.

[stu in nottingham]

There's actually a 'brigade' for this?

Where do I enlist? :wink:

[steakbake]

There's actually a 'brigade' for this?

Where do I enlist? :wink:

its like the politically correct brigade. i have always wanted to join, but i cannot find their head quarters.

what is the politically correct brigade all about anyway?

apparently its people who want to weigh everything in kilos, eat straight bananas and to ensure that kids are instructed in urdu at nursery school by a disabled lesbian teacher.

[Hibrandenburg]

For the best part, if you're gonna kill someone then you've got to be pretty desperate. If you're desperate then the consequences of what you do will probably be at the back of your mind when you do it. Hence the death penalty in this scenario being of little deterence.

Premeditated! Now that's a different kettle of trout.

[Phil D. Rolls]

For the best part, if you're gonna kill someone then you've got to be pretty desperate. If you're desperate then the consequences of what you do will probably be at the back of your mind when you do it. Hence the death penalty in this scenario being of little deterence.

Premeditated! Now that's a different kettle of trout.

Help!! There's somebody using joined up thinking here - we can't have that, it's a death penalty debate.

Shut the doors, nobody leaves till we get this sorted out!!!

[Mibbes Aye]

its like the politically correct brigade. i have always wanted to join, but i cannot find their head quarters.

what is the politically correct brigade all about anyway?

apparently its people who want to weigh everything in kilos, eat straight bananas and to ensure that kids are instructed in urdu at nursery school by a disabled lesbian teacher.

They had better be Fairtrade bananas :cool2:

[Phil D. Rolls]

They had better be Fairtrade bananas :cool2:

Can somebody tell me, if Sainsbury's only sell Fairtrade Bananas, where should I get the rest of my messages?

[muz1875]

For the best part, if you're gonna kill someone then you've got to be pretty desperate. If you're desperate then the consequences of what you do will probably be at the back of your mind when you do it. Hence the death penalty in this scenario being of little deterence.

Premeditated! Now that's a different kettle of trout.

It's not really just about whether it will deter people though is it? Murderers and rapists will always be ****bags so shouldn't be a part of our society. Remove them from the gene pool, don't allow them the chance to have kids and I'm confident society would see the benefits down the line.

[Phil D. Rolls]

It's not really just about whether it will deter people though is it? Murderers and rapists will always be ****bags so shouldn't be a part of our society. Remove them from the gene pool, don't allow them the chance to have kids and I'm confident society would see the benefits down the line.

I'm not too keen on motorists either, you could be onto something here.

[PC Stamp]

The most concerning thing about the story is the fact that he served a mere 9 years for taking the life of his first victim.

9 ****in' years for taking someone's life!!!

Culpable homicide, manslaughter, murder ..... all involve killing someone whether pre meditated or not!! 9 bloody years!!!

Forget hanging. If he'd served a proper sentence for taking a life then the shopkeeper would still be alive! The justice system in this country is a bloody joke.

Judges -crusty, uppity titled old bawbags in stupid wigs and gowns that clearly have lost their faculties!

They couldn't judge the sodding weather if they stuck their frosty old beaks oot the windae!

[LiverpoolHibs]

It's not really just about whether it will deter people though is it? Murderers and rapists will always be ****bags so shouldn't be a part of our society. Remove them from the gene pool, don't allow them the chance to have kids and I'm confident society would see the benefits down the line.
Ah, the rape and murder instinct is hereditary. Riiiiight....

[Pretty Boy]

It's not really just about whether it will deter people though is it? Murderers and rapists will always be ****bags so shouldn't be a part of our society. Remove them from the gene pool, don't allow them the chance to have kids and I'm confident society would see the benefits down the line.

Classic, i'm not too keen on people who speak narrow minded rubbish so sorry you are getting reported to the police when your idea becomes law. Rape and murder are hereditary are they? Must have missed that scientific study.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Classic, i'm not too keen on people who speak narrow minded rubbish so sorry you are getting reported to the police when your idea becomes law. Rape and murder are hereditary are they? Must have missed that scientific study.

Come on, the Germans did lots of studies on this sort of thing in the 30s and 40s, and they certainly knew how to deal with people who didn't conform.

[muz1875]

Ah, the rape and murder instinct is hereditary. Riiiiight....

Obviously not, but there's plenty evidence for genes being the most important thing in determining other things like intelligence etc, so why not aggression? Genes, along with the environment they grow up in, pretty much determine how a child will turn out, do you think either of them are gonna be the best for the child of a murderer/junkie/ned with numerous assault charges etc etc? Do you think a man and a woman who both have ongoing drug habits should be allowed to have children?

[LiverpoolHibs]

Come on, the Germans did lots of studies on this sort of thing in the 30s and 40s, and they certainly knew how to deal with people who didn't conform.
It's actually the second Mengele-ian comment I've read on this site in the past few days. Worrying....

[LiverpoolHibs]

Obviously not, but there's plenty evidence for genes being the most important thing in determining other things like intelligence etc, so why not aggression? Genes, along with the environment they grow up in, pretty much determine how a child will turn out, do you think either of them are gonna be the best for the child of a murderer/junkie/ned with numerous assault charges etc etc? Do you think a man and a woman who both have ongoing drug habits should be allowed to have children?
You do realise that you seem to be advocating forced sterilisation of 'undesirable elements' in society?

Just to make sure...

[steakbake]

You do realise that you seem to be advocating forced sterilisation of 'undesirable elements' in society?

Just to make sure...

Im sure we could do it more subtly. Perhaps by adding saltpeter to any foodstuffs sold in farmfoods should slow the population growth in the underclass.

(As Hitler said to a shark one day on Discovery Channel)

[LiverpoolHibs]

Im sure we could do it more subtly. Perhaps by adding saltpeter to any foodstuffs sold in farmfoods should slow the population growth in the underclass.

(As Hitler said to a shark one day on Discovery Channel)
:greengrin

[Pretty Boy]

Come on, the Germans did lots of studies on this sort of thing in the 30s and 40s, and they certainly knew how to deal with people who didn't conform.

Indeed, come to think of it i've never been particularly keen on those traveling types or homosexuals either, clearly lowering the intelligence level of decent people with their dirty habits.

[muz1875]

You do realise that you seem to be advocating forced sterilisation of 'undesirable elements' in society?

Just to make sure...

Not quite. I'm saying if anyone wants to have a baby, they should be able to provide a proper upbringing for it. Social services have the power to take away children who they deem aren't being cared from properly. Why not take steps before the child is even born to make sure this isn't gonna happen? Instead, you've now got a child growing up away from his proper mum and dad, not exactly fair is it?

If someone has proven they are not responsible to drive through say, a drink driving charge, they get their licence taken off them and are not allowed to drive. If social services was to take a child away because the parents are not bringing it up properly, what's stopping them just having another one, thus repeating the cycle :dunno:

Massive digression from original topic btw :greengrin

[muz1875]

Indeed, come to think of it i've never been particularly keen on those traveling types or homosexuals either, clearly lowering the intelligence level of decent people with their dirty habits.

Slightly different.

[New Corrie]

It's funny how all the "wrapped in cotton wool pinkos" just snobbishly sneer at people and suggest they must be Daily Mail readers if they despair at the pro criminal mentality in this country. Nobody ever gives a thought to victims of crime, they are to wrapped up in trying to help the perpetrators and looking for answers as to why these terrible things happen. It's really quite simplistic (if you can keep commies and social workers out of the equation) that is. You get good people and you get bad people, the good need protected from the bad and sadly that doesn't happen. I noticed the other day a 22 year old getting community service yet he had amassed over 120 previous convictions. Could someone please explain to me why someone with that sort of record (which included no end of violence) should be walking the streets.

[steakbake]

are you suggesting that only daily mail readers are victims of crime? :dunno:

[hibsboy90]

It's funny how all the "wrapped in cotton wool pinkos" just snobbishly sneer at people and suggest they must be Daily Mail readers if they despair at the pro criminal mentality in this country. Nobody ever gives a thought to victims of crime, they are to wrapped up in trying to help the perpetrators and looking for answers as to why these terrible things happen. It's really quite simplistic (if you can keep commies and social workers out of the equation) that is. You get good people and you get bad people, the good need protected from the bad and sadly that doesn't happen. I noticed the other day a 22 year old getting community service yet he had amassed over 120 previous convictions. Could someone please explain to me why someone with that sort of record (which included no end of violence) should be walking the streets.

I believe that people are thinking about the victims of crime. However how would you feel if you, or a loved one was wrongly killed as punishment in order to "think for the victim"

Don't just think of the victim, there are numerous other people and values to be looked at.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Not quite. I'm saying if anyone wants to have a baby, they should be able to provide a proper upbringing for it. Social services have the power to take away children who they deem aren't being cared from properly. Why not take steps before the child is even born to make sure this isn't gonna happen? Instead, you've now got a child growing up away from his proper mum and dad, not exactly fair is it?

If someone has proven they are not responsible to drive through say, a drink driving charge, they get their licence taken off them and are not allowed to drive. If social services was to take a child away because the parents are not bringing it up properly, what's stopping them just having another one, thus repeating the cycle :dunno:

Massive digression from original topic btw :greengrin
Apart from the singularly dubious morality of such an idea, how exactly are you going to go about enforcing that?

[LiverpoolHibs]

It's funny how all the "wrapped in cotton wool pinkos" just snobbishly sneer at people and suggest they must be Daily Mail readers if they despair at the pro criminal mentality in this country. Nobody ever gives a thought to victims of crime, they are to wrapped up in trying to help the perpetrators and looking for answers as to why these terrible things happen. It's really quite simplistic (if you can keep commies and social workers out of the equation) that is. You get good people and you get bad people, the good need protected from the bad and sadly that doesn't happen. I noticed the other day a 22 year old getting community service yet he had amassed over 120 previous convictions. Could someone please explain to me why someone with that sort of record (which included no end of violence) should be walking the streets.
I refer to my previous post about the awful pseudo-populist rhetoric of the Right at the moment.

[muz1875]

I noticed the other day a 22 year old getting community service yet he had amassed over 120 previous convictions. Could someone please explain to me why someone with that sort of record (which included no end of violence) should be walking the streets.

Simple answer would be that the justice system in this country is a joke. I also wonder how the opinions of people on this thread would change if the shopkeeper in the original article had been their dad/brother etc?

[lyonhibs]

I believe that people are thinking about the victims of crime. However how would you feel if you, or a loved one was wrongly killed as punishment in order to "think for the victim"

Don't just think of the victim, there are numerous other people and values to be looked at.

I think we're talking about the death penaly in case where the guilt can be proved - and with the advances in DNA technology etc etc this can be done - beyond any shred of doubt.

So people getting "wrongly killed" wouldn't happen - in theory.

How the hell did this thread descend from "should the death penalty be reintroduced (not that it's remotely possible) in the cases of proven cold blooded murderers - such as the one in the OP article -" to the frankly more worrying and Menge-lian premise that we should "remove" any one with an addiction or a criminal record from the gene pool??

Only on Hibs.net, honestly :bitchy:

[muz1875]

How the hell did this thread descend from "should the death penalty be reintroduced (not that it's remotely possible) in the cases of proven cold blooded murderers - such as the one in the OP article -" to the frankly more worrying and Menge-lian premise that we should "remove" any one with an addiction or a criminal record from the gene pool??

Only on Hibs.net, honestly :bitchy:

Who said that?

[New Corrie]

Simple answer would be that the justice system in this country is a joke. I also wonder how the opinions of people on this thread would change if the shopkeeper in the original article had been their dad/brother etc?


They would change their tune with immediate effect.

[steakbake]

thats the thing though.

if you are not for harsher penalties and locking people up and throwing away the key, it's almost assumed that you have never been a victim of a crime and that you are somehow locked away in some parallel liberal mindset which doesn't understand the concerns of the "real" people of the country.

news is that i and other people i know have been a victim of crime. several in fact. to my property, to my person, to people i know.

crime happens and anyone who goes to the courts looking for justice is as much of an ass as the law apparently is.

[New Corrie]

Who said that?

Don't know, but it's not the worse idea.:wink:

[McSwanky]

[/b]


They would change their tune with immediate effect.

...as they would no doubt be behaving irrationally.

Hardly the best state to be making objective decisions in, is it?

[LiverpoolHibs]

...as they would no doubt be behaving irrationally.

Hardly the best state to be making objective decisions in, is it?
Exactly...

[muz1875]

crime happens and anyone who goes to the courts looking for justice is as much of an ass as the law apparently is.

So basically we should just accept the fact the justice system is a joke and always will be and that when we have kids etc they will be sharing a city with ex-murderers and other criminals who should really still be locked up, as well as accepting that one day we might be the victims of one of their crimes? I'm assuming everyone's the same when I say that when I have kids I never want them to come into contact with an ex-murderer or rapist. If they're dead/locked up for life that's not gonna happen is it?

[steakbake]

So basically we should just accept the fact the justice system is a joke and always will be and that when we have kids etc they will be sharing a city with ex-murderers and other criminals who should really still be locked up, as well as accepting that one day we might be the victims of one of their crimes?

What else do you suggest?

[lyonhibs]

thats the thing though.

if you are not for harsher penalties and locking people up and throwing away the key, it's almost assumed that you have never been a victim of a crime and that you are somehow locked away in some parallel liberal mindset which doesn't understand the concerns of the "real" people of the country.

news is that i and other people i know have been a victim of crime. several in fact. to my property, to my person, to people i know.

crime happens and anyone who goes to the courts looking for justice is as much of an ass as the law apparently is.

Possibly the daftest thing I've ever read on this forum - football related or not.

So effectively, if the court system (and its healthy complement of highly paid judges and administrators) consistently fails to deliver anything remotely approaching justice - let's take the death penalty out of the equation for a minute - then we should just nod our head in resigned assent and go "ho-hum, at least we don't live in Zimbabwe"

With that outlook, what's the point in ANY sort of legal system at all, if we're all walking the streets knowing that anyone, at anytime, could stick a knife into our face and our bereaved family would be "asses" to expect the courts to deliver justice??

Never mind this nonsensical notion of "victimless crimes", you've just opened my mind to a new genre "the perpetrator-less crime", becasue, obviously, if our shabby courts system will never bring justice, and we all know that beforehand, then no-one REALLY commited the "crime" seeing as no court in the land would convict its perpetrator.

Bugger this revising for Finals malarkey, I'm off to knife me a rich granny.

It's fine though, cos her family will be "asses" for expecting the courts to convict me.

Wooooooo, where's me kitchen knife!!!!!!!!!

[muz1875]

What else do you suggest?

Well your post seemed to suggest we should just accept the fact that the justice system is a joke and there's nothing we can do about it. Isn't that a bit defeatist? Harsher sentences and life meaning life would be a start on changing that, but why not look at how other countries deal with crime and the effect that it has on crime rates and at least attempt to change things? If it doesn't work, fine, try something else.

[Bobby S]

The murder rate in countries and states which have the Death Penalty is usually higher than those that don't.

Do they count state executions as murders?

[SlickShoes]

So basically we should just accept the fact the justice system is a joke and always will be and that when we have kids etc they will be sharing a city with ex-murderers and other criminals who should really still be locked up, as well as accepting that one day we might be the victims of one of their crimes? I'm assuming everyone's the same when I say that when I have kids I never want them to come into contact with an ex-murderer or rapist. If they're dead/locked up for life that's not gonna happen is it?

What if your son/daughter becomes a murderer or rapist will you advocating them being killed without being offered any sort of help at all?

[steakbake]

[/B]

Possibly the daftest thing I've ever read on this forum - football related or not.

So effectively, if the court system (and its healthy complement of highly paid judges and administrators) consistently fails to deliver anything remotely approaching justice - let's take the death penalty out of the equation for a minute - then we should just nod our head in resigned assent and go "ho-hum, at least we don't live in Zimbabwe"

With that outlook, what's the point in ANY sort of legal system at all, if we're all walking the streets knowing that anyone, at anytime, could stick a knife into our face and our bereaved family would be "asses" to expect the courts to deliver justice??

Never mind this nonsensical notion of "victimless crimes", you've just opened my mind to a new genre "the perpetrator-less crime", becasue, obviously, if our shabby courts system will never bring justice, and we all know that beforehand, then no-one REALLY commited the "crime" seeing as no court in the land would convict its perpetrator.

Bugger this revising for Finals malarkey, I'm off to knife me a rich granny.

It's fine though, cos her family will be "asses" for expecting the courts to convict me.

Wooooooo, where's me kitchen knife!!!!!!!!!

Yev gone off half cocked.

alls im saying is that justice and "the law" are two different things.

if you go and stab some granny, i fully expect that you would probably be done for murder and i would hope you would get life. not least because you stated your intentions on here, so you couldn't claim for manslaughter "passion of the moment" kind of thing.

whether you would deserve the death penalty is not for us to judge, but you would probably be given a sentence which reflects various factors: previous convictions, possibility of rehabilitation, likelihood of reoffending, psychological condition and whether you had expressed some kind of recognition that what you have done was wrong. that's the law. not justice.

justice might be that the victims family could select one of your relatives for the chop. justice suggests some kind of restoration of parity. you just dont get justice in the courts. only the application of the law.

two different things.

entirely.

[lyonhibs]

Yev gone off half cocked.

alls im saying is that justice and "the law" are two different things.

if you go and stab some granny, i fully expect that you would probably be done for murder and i would hope you would get life. not least because you stated your intentions on here, so you couldn't claim for manslaughter "passion of the moment" kind of thing.

whether you would deserve the death penalty is not for us to judge, but you would probably be given a sentence which reflects various factors: previous convictions, possibility of rehabilitation, likelihood of reoffending, psychological condition and whether you had expressed some kind of recognition that what you have done was wrong. that's the law. not justice.

justice might be that the victims family could select one of your relatives for the chop. justice suggests some kind of restoration of parity. you just dont get justice in the courts. only the application of the law.

two different things.

entirely.

Ah right gotcha.

Yes I did rather go off on one, but your post saying that anyone that expects to see justice administered by very system that is supposed to administer it were "asses" was a tad crass IMO.

In an ideal world, the letter of the law would equal any reasonable person's definition of justice, yet you hear of drunken idiots that have killed a innocent bystander in a road accident only getting 120 hours of community service and a 2 year driving ban. How on earth is that justice??

[steakbake]

Ah right gotcha.

Yes I did rather go off on one, but your post saying that anyone that expects to see justice administered by very system that is supposed to administer it were "asses" was a tad crass IMO.

In an ideal world, the letter of the law would equal any reasonable person's definition of justice, yet you hear of drunken idiots that have killed a innocent bystander in a road accident only getting 120 hours of community service and a 2 year driving ban. How on earth is that justice??

Apologies.

I just generally have a very dim and jaded view of "society".

I should not assume that other people have as equally a bleak view as mine!

[Mibbes Aye]

Just an aside but a few posts have mentioned that DNA science is so advanced that proof of guilt is virtually certain nowadays.

I'm saying this from shaky memory but doesn't Scottish law require mens rea i.e. proof of malicious wilfulness. I would imagine that this could paint a very grey area where murder and culpable homicide meet. Or are people suggesting that culpable homicide also deserves the death penalty?

Stand to be corrected if memory is playing tricks on me.

[AndyP]

I think we're talking about the death penaly in case where the guilt can be proved - and with the advances in DNA technology etc etc this can be done - beyond any shred of doubt.

So people getting "wrongly killed" wouldn't happen - in theory.
1

You'd like to think so wouldn't you.......There was a study in the US about 5 or 6 years ago that showed it is possible to passively transfer DNA up to 10 days after the contact, gives good grounds for reasonable doubt IF it is the sole evidence

Edit: Try Googling Rutty GN for the full article

[Pretty Boy]

It's funny how all the "wrapped in cotton wool pinkos" just snobbishly sneer at people and suggest they must be Daily Mail readers if they despair at the pro criminal mentality in this country. Nobody ever gives a thought to victims of crime, they are to wrapped up in trying to help the perpetrators and looking for answers as to why these terrible things happen. It's really quite simplistic (if you can keep commies and social workers out of the equation) that is. You get good people and you get bad people, the good need protected from the bad and sadly that doesn't happen. I noticed the other day a 22 year old getting community service yet he had amassed over 120 previous convictions. Could someone please explain to me why someone with that sort of record (which included no end of violence) should be walking the streets.

The part in bold is a point upon which the left and right will never agree. The right believe in a natural hierarchy and have a belief that people can be born bad, the left believes that everyone is born equally and it is the society in which one is raised that determines good and bad. I certainly don't believe someone can be born a bad person, this is suggesting a genetic inferiority or abnormality in individuals. It is the society we have created of haves and have nots which breeds ignorance, apathy, a criminal mentality and ultimately badness. To suggest people are born bad is , IMHO, sheer ignorance.

[LiverpoolHibs]

The part in bold is a point upon which the left and right will never agree. The right believe in a natural hierarchy and have a belief that people can be born bad, the left believes that everyone is born equally and it is the society in which one is raised that determines good and bad. I certainly don't believe someone can be born a bad person, this is suggesting a genetic inferiority or abnormality in individuals. It is the society we have created of haves and have nots which breeds ignorance, apathy, a criminal mentality and ultimately badness. To suggest people are born bad is , IMHO, sheer ignorance.
I don't think you can deny that there is the occasional 'throw-up' of a psychotic individual. But generally I agree with your point.

[Pretty Boy]

I don't think you can deny that there is the occasional 'throw-up' of a psychotic individual. But generally I agree with your point.

Undoubtedly there would be individuals who break the mold as it were, but i would wager most of these type of quirks would be explained through a mental illness, psychological or personality trait and so on as opposed to being a person born evil.

[muz1875]

Undoubtedly there would be individuals who break the mold as it were, but i would wager most of these type of quirks would be explained through a mental illness, psychological or personality trait and so on as opposed to being a person born evil.

I agree nobody is born evil, but the two things you mention, mental illnesses and personality traits, are very much hereditary so it could be argued some people are born with an increased risk of becoming 'bad' surely?

[LiverpoolHibs]

I agree nobody is born evil, but the two things you mention, mental illnesses and personality traits, are very much hereditary so it could be argued some people are born with an increased risk of becoming 'bad' surely?
And they are the people that it is legislated against in America (well, supposedly anyway) that cannot be executed.

And they're not hereditary at all as far as I know. And even if so you are yet again (worryingly) veering into eugenics.

[Steve-O]

are you suggesting that only daily mail readers are victims of crime? :dunno:

If there was any justice they would be :agree:

[alex plode]

And they are the people that it is legislated against in America (well, supposedly anyway) that cannot be executed.

And they're not hereditary at all as far as I know. And even if so you are yet again (worryingly) veering into eugenics.

Many of the mental illnesses that lead people to do horrendous things have a hereditary, genetic link - so to answer an earlier point if a rapist or murderer has schitzophrenia or some bi-polar disorder thaen yes, it's hereitary.

The OP has a point as well, not re. the death penalty since I doubt the case in point would have carried the death sentence, but on the pecieved inadequacy of sentencing in the UK.

As for the drifting references to eugenics, lets not forget this is still commonly practiced - under the guise of selective termination of pregnancy. Nothing wrong with that imho.

[Phil D. Rolls]

It's funny how all the "wrapped in cotton wool pinkos" just snobbishly sneer at people and suggest they must be Daily Mail readers if they despair at the pro criminal mentality in this country. Nobody ever gives a thought to victims of crime, they are to wrapped up in trying to help the perpetrators and looking for answers as to why these terrible things happen. It's really quite simplistic (if you can keep commies and social workers out of the equation) that is. You get good people and you get bad people, the good need protected from the bad and sadly that doesn't happen. I noticed the other day a 22 year old getting community service yet he had amassed over 120 previous convictions. Could someone please explain to me why someone with that sort of record (which included no end of violence) should be walking the streets.

Grow up son.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Undoubtedly there would be individuals who break the mold as it were, but i would wager most of these type of quirks would be explained through a mental illness, psychological or personality trait and so on as opposed to being a person born evil.

There was a study done in the USA that showed that a large proportion of people on Death Row had a similair genetic profile.

The problem for me is - how many people who are not on death row have the same profile. Does it mean that having that "bad gene" means you will murder?

[capitals_finest]

In an ideal world there would be no death penalty. In an ideal world there would be no need for a death penalty. But unfortunately we don’t live in an ideal world. We live in a ****ed up planet and are all (whether you think you are rich , poor or whatever) are one of the lucky ones. Every day thousands die because we - every one of us here- don’t do anything (or as much as we could do) about it. We live in a cocoon and naturally ignore the bigger picture because it is easier to do it that way. For most people on this planet life is pretty grim and a struggle. Yet people can sit behind their pc’s and laptops and argue for tens of thousands of pounds to be spent on keeping some of the sc*mmiest bassas you can imagine alive!! WTF is that all about? OK that money probably wouldn’t be spent on anything really worthwhile on the grand scale of things but how can you even consider keeping these people alive when there are so many good people struggling with nothing. How can life be so precious and important that people can sit and argue for terrorists, serial rapists/paedos, mass killers etc to stay alive while good people that have nothing are conveniently forgotten. They say things like its ‘inhumane’ :faf:. Sorry but that’s ***ing pathetic. So locking them up for the rest of their lives is humane? I m not saying kill people willy nilly but to defend someones life no matter how bad that person is, is small minded.

In an ideal world we could jail people for the rest of their lives -or whatever is more acceptable to your beliefs - as a way of punishing people but there is a hell of a lot more that should be worrying us at the moment

[LiverpoolHibs]

In an ideal world there would be no death penalty. In an ideal world there would be no need for a death penalty. But unfortunately we don’t live in an ideal world. We live in a ****ed up planet and are all (whether you think you are rich , poor or whatever) are one of the lucky ones. Every day thousands die because we - every one of us here- don’t do anything (or as much as we could do) about it. We live in a cocoon and naturally ignore the bigger picture because it is easier to do it that way. For most people on this planet life is pretty grim and a struggle. Yet people can sit behind their pc’s and laptops and argue for tens of thousands of pounds to be spent on keeping some of the sc*mmiest bassas you can imagine alive!! WTF is that all about? OK that money probably wouldn’t be spent on anything really worthwhile on the grand scale of things but how can you even consider keeping these people alive when there are so many good people struggling with nothing. How can life be so precious and important that people can sit and argue for terrorists, serial rapists/paedos, mass killers etc to stay alive while good people that have nothing are conveniently forgotten. They say things like its ‘inhumane’ :faf:. Sorry but that’s ***ing pathetic. So locking them up for the rest of their lives is humane? I m not saying kill people willy nilly but to defend someones life no matter how bad that person is, is small minded.

In an ideal world we could jail people for the rest of their lives -or whatever is more acceptable to your beliefs - as a way of punishing people but there is a hell of a lot more that should be worrying us at the moment
I'd suggest you don't judge everyone by your own standards. Apart from that your argument is ridiculous, there are other bad things happening in the world therefore **** treating criminals in a humane manner? Risible and illogical.

[Hibrandenburg]

Apart from the many courtroom mistakes that have happened in the past, sending innocent people to the gallows.

Think about all the regimes in the past who have used existing laws to get shot of their political enemies/opponents:

Hitler

Che

Stalin

Etc

Etc

[Hibby D]

Im sure we could do it more subtly. Perhaps by adding saltpeter to any foodstuffs sold in farmfoods should slow the population growth in the underclass.

(As Hitler said to a shark one day on Discovery Channel)

Provided it wasn't Fair Trade foodstuff though - fairtrade buyers should be exempt :wink::greengrin


I think we're talking about the death penaly in case where the guilt can be proved - and with the advances in DNA technology etc etc this can be done - beyond any shred of doubt.

So people getting "wrongly killed" wouldn't happen - in theory.

How the hell did this thread descend from "should the death penalty be reintroduced (not that it's remotely possible) in the cases of proven cold blooded murderers - such as the one in the OP article -" to the frankly more worrying and Menge-lian premise that we should "remove" any one with an addiction or a criminal record from the gene pool??

Only on Hibs.net, honestly :bitchy:

There could be (fairtrade) food for thought in that. Do you think being a Yam is down to genetics or is it a learned behaviour?? :dunno:

And I think it's wholly unfair to suggest that .net is the only home of Mengelian-esque POV's. I can remember being 5, maybe 6 and hearing an elderly relative (God rest his soul) shouting at the TV in an Alf Garnett type way that if he had a gun he'd shoot everyone who was pro-IRA, UDF, UVF etc., because he naively (and ironically) believed that exterminating them all would bring peace to NI. On the evening of 9/11 (and a few days before I was due to fly to the States) I received a call from a 'friend' begging me to promise to get off my flight if I saw any dark skinned passengers on the plane :confused: To this day she believes "muslims" have a gene that makes them want to tie bombs to themselves :grr: (On a positvie note though I believe she buys fairtrade coffee these days so all is well :bitchy:)

Can anyone imagine having a dozen of your peers who have thought processes similar to those of my eldery relative or (ex-)friend deciding whether or not someone should get the death penalty?? God Forbid!!

[New Corrie]

Grow up son.

Taxi driver in "i'm right and everone else is wrong" shocker!!!

[The Green Goblin]

It's really quite simplistic. You get good people and you get bad people, the good need protected from the bad and sadly that doesn't happen.

An unfortunately apt description of your attitude towards this complex issue. Have you heard George W Bush speaking recently? He also divides the world into two categories. He believes that there`s some kind of ancient biblical battle still raging on between "good and evil".

In his mind, one either belongs to the `good` side and if they don`t, then they must be on the `evil` side.

Sound familiar?

GG

[capitals_finest]

I'd suggest you don't judge everyone by your own standards. Apart from that your argument is ridiculous, there are other bad things happening in the world therefore **** treating criminals in a humane manner? Risible and illogical.

Risible. :tee hee:

[LiverpoolHibs]

Risible. :tee hee:
:greengrin

Have Monty Python actually rendered that word redundant?

[HibsMax]

Yada yada yada. No-one is saying that it is a good thing to kill, in fact that is one of the central arguments against the death penalty.

If you can prove that the existence of a death penalty actually deters people from committing murder (try quoting stats from the USA for example) then you might be going somewhere with your argument. As it stands, all you are showing is the same knee jerk reaction that saw innocent people like Derek Bentley hanged, and the likes of the Guildford Four banged up for something they didn't do (if people like you had their way, they'd be dead as well).

One last thing - hanging the murderer doesn't bring the victim back.

I might be missing something though, if anyone can tell me what the death penalty achieves other than revenge, I may change my point of view.

At least I've thought about it though.
The death penalty prevents a murderer killing again.

I love this debate :) but I don't have the time to got through all the posts.

EDIT: is the death penalty a deterrent? Not for everyone. There are people who will do anything regardless of the consequences. Case in point, prisoners in the maximum security facility in California (Pelican Bay). When new inmates arrive they either have to align with the gang of their race, face being attacked by inmates of their own kind or go to block C along with the informants, sex offenders, etc. Many of them will not do this because it brings shame upon them and their lives are worth nothing as far as the gangs are concerned. So inmates who don't want to commit crime will do so anyway because they HAVE to, regardless of what it means to their sentence, chance of parole, etc.

But I digress.

How much of a deterrent the death penalty is is very difficult to prove in my opinion. Just because it doesn't dissuade everyone from killing doesn't mean that it doesn't dissuade some people from killing. Consider a surgical procedure that has a 10% mortality rate. Does that mean the procedure is ineffective and should be abandoned? Of course not. Sure, the procedure doesn't work for some people but it works for others. I'll bet there are many people out there who have stopped short of killing someone else because they have stopped to consider the consequences. There are also those people who don't consider the consequences at all, not much can be done for them, they are the most dangerous of them all.

And as for the concern of innocent people being killed. Yes, that is a concern of mine as well which is why the death penalty, in my opinion, should be used for clear cut cases of which there are MANY examples.

Two wrongs don't make a right? :) That statement only makes sense if you consider the second death as being wrong.

Doesn't bring the victim back? No, but it can help prevent there being more victims.

[Mibbes Aye]

The death penalty prevents a murderer killing again.



So does rehabilitation.

I know which one is the mark of a better society.

[hibbytam]

The death penalty is wrong. How could anyone claim moral superiority by doing exactly what the criminal has done in the first place.
Also its very ironic the number of christians that support the death penalty. With one of the stick out lines from the bible is, 'thou shalt not kill'.

Death also is the easy way out. They have no reflection on the pain they cause. If anyone commited such a crime against me, i'd want them to suffer. Not a quick needle/ electric dance/whatever, and then thats that.

[capitals_finest]

So does rehabilitation.

I know which one is the mark of a better society.

'a better society' :hmmm:. So would you say we are now a better society since the death penalty was abolished in the sixties?

[capitals_finest]

The death penalty is wrong. How could anyone claim moral superiority by doing exactly what the criminal has done in the first place.
Also its very ironic the number of christians that support the death penalty. With one of the stick out lines from the bible is, 'thou shalt not kill'.

Death also is the easy way out. They have no reflection on the pain they cause. If anyone commited such a crime against me, i'd want them to suffer. Not a quick needle/ electric dance/whatever, and then thats that.


It isn't about morality it is about having the strength to do something for the greater good.

[LiverpoolHibs]

'a better society' :hmmm:. So would you say we are now a better society since the death penalty was abolished in the sixties?
Even assuming the answer to that question is 'no', that's another pretty ridiculous argument.

[capitals_finest]

Even assuming the answer to that question is 'no', that's another pretty ridiculous argument.


I wasn't making an argument.

[LiverpoolHibs]

I wasn't making an argument.
Piece of rhetoric then, it's clear what your point was.

[hibbytam]

It isn't about morality it is about having the strength to do something for the greater good.

A greater man than me once said, 'an eye for an eye will make us all blind'
I can't better that, i'm afraid.

[capitals_finest]

Piece of rhetoric then, it's clear what your point was.

So it was a pretty ridiculous point then? :confused:

[LiverpoolHibs]

So it was a pretty ridiculous point then? :confused:
Sigh.

What are you doing? It is quite clear what the argument behind the 'point' was, enough to say that the argument is ridiculous.

[GhostofBolivar]

It isn't about morality it is about having the strength to do something for the greater good.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karla_Faye_Tucker

[capitals_finest]

Sigh.

What are you doing? It is quite clear what the argument behind the 'point' was, enough to say that the argument is ridiculous.

Sigh...

Well next time you ridicule one of my posts or another person's post please give a wee explanation as to why :aok:

[LiverpoolHibs]

Sigh...

Well next time you ridicule one of my posts or another person's post please give a wee explanation as to why :aok:
I wasn't trying to be nasty, I would have thought it would be fairly self-explanatory what the reasoning behind my post was. :confused:

It obviously wasn't. Suggesting that the supposed downfall of society since the 1960s is all the result of the abolition of the death penalty is pretty ridiculous.

[capitals_finest]

I wasn't trying to be nasty, I would have thought it would be fairly self-explanatory what the reasoning behind my post was. :confused:

It obviously wasn't. Suggesting that the supposed downfall of society since the 1960s is all the result of the abolition of the death penalty is pretty ridiculous.

When did i say that the downfall of society was 'all the result' of the abolition of the death penalty?

[LiverpoolHibs]

When did i say that the downfall of society was 'all the result' of the abolition of the death penalty?

'a better society' :hmmm:. So would you say we are now a better society since the death penalty was abolished in the sixties?

That's what I took from the above. Apologies if I've misinterpreted it.

[hibbytam]

'a better society' :hmmm:. So would you say we are now a better society since the death penalty was abolished in the sixties?
Yes, i would.

[lyonhibs]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karla_Faye_Tucker

Tucker then hacked Deborah to death with multiple pickax blows


Errrrr - I stopped reading after this line.

She was guilty as sin of a crime that - rightly or wrongly - is deemed meritous of the death penalty in Texas.

Thus, regardless of how much she claimed to have repented/"found god" this case is not a miscarriage of justice.

Surely??? :dunno:

[Mibbes Aye]

'a better society' :hmmm:. So would you say we are now a better society since the death penalty was abolished in the sixties?

Yes, we are a better society for not having the death penalty.

[HibsMax]

So does rehabilitation.

I know which one is the mark of a better society.
Not everyone can be successfully rehabilitated.

Lest anyone gets confused and think I blindly support killing criminals, that's not the case and it never has been. I reserve this punishment for the worst of the worst, for those men and women who truly pose a great danger to the public at large.

[HibsMax]

The death penalty is wrong. How could anyone claim moral superiority by doing exactly what the criminal has done in the first place.
Also its very ironic the number of christians that support the death penalty. With one of the stick out lines from the bible is, 'thou shalt not kill'.

Death also is the easy way out. They have no reflection on the pain they cause. If anyone commited such a crime against me, i'd want them to suffer. Not a quick needle/ electric dance/whatever, and then thats that.
Hmmmmm, maybe I need to read through all the posts but are there really people claiming moral superiority in this thread? That seems strange to me. To me this has nothing to so with feeling superior in any way, it's ALL about keeping people safe. When known dangerous convicted criminals are released back into the general public, bad things can happen.

And I don't think it's clear cut, black & white.....each case has to be looked at on its own merit. Consider a guy kills another guy in a drunken bar fight. Let's say the guy has never been in trouble with the law before and the death was accidental. Should he be executed? I would say probably not. But then take a a guy who serially kidnaps, tortures, rapes and kill young girls? Should we try and "fix him"? I'll push the button if nobody else will.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Hmmmmm, maybe I need to read through all the posts but are there really people claiming moral superiority in this thread? That seems strange to me. To me this has nothing to so with feeling superior in any way, it's ALL about keeping people safe. When known dangerous convicted criminals are released back into the general public, bad things can happen.

And I don't think it's clear cut, black & white.....each case has to be looked at on its own merit. Consider a guy kills another guy in a drunken bar fight. Let's say the guy has never been in trouble with the law before and the death was accidental. Should he be executed? I would say probably not. But then take a a guy who serially kidnaps, tortures, rapes and kill young girls? Should we try and "fix him"? I'll push the button if nobody else will.
But I don't know what that achieves other than just blind vengeance. I understand that an execution actually costs more than life in prison so I don't think that can be a consideration. Knowing that their crimes will be punishable by death isn't going to deter the sort of criminal who 'serially, kidnaps, tortures, rapes and kills young girls'.

[alex plode]

But I don't know what that achieves other than just blind vengeance. I understand that an execution actually costs more than life in prison so I don't think that can be a consideration. Knowing that their crimes will be punishable by death isn't going to deter the sort of criminal who 'serially, kidnaps, tortures, rapes and kills young girls'.

But there could be an argument for blind vengence.
If a serial murderer / rapist inflicted the worst on your child and was then found guilty - you may well wish that person dead .

The act of execution doesn't cost more than a life behind bars - it's the legal system that costs. A high percentage of those sentenced to death in the US don't actually have their sentence carried out (eg Kenny Ritchie) and subsequently end up serving life via a lengthy and costly appeals process.
In KR's case, it seems crazy to impose a death sentence for the crime of arson where the evidence is sketchy
Imho - if you're going to retain a death sentence it should be only for people for whom rehabilitation is unlikely or near impossible; repeat offenders; multiple murderers etc.
Shouldn't be too difficult to legislate for.

[LiverpoolHibs]

But there could be an argument for blind vengence.
If a serial murderer / rapist inflicted the worst on your child and was then found guilty - you may well wish that person dead .

The act of execution doesn't cost more than a life behind bars - it's the legal system that costs. A high percentage of those sentenced to death in the US don't actually have their sentence carried out (eg Kenny Ritchie) and subsequently end up serving life via a lengthy and costly appeals process.
In KR's case, it seems crazy to impose a death sentence for the crime of arson where the evidence is sketchy
Imho - if you're going to retain a death sentence it should be only for people for whom rehabilitation is unlikely or near impossible; repeat offenders; multiple murderers etc.
Shouldn't be too difficult to legislate for.
But the cost would be the same (I is also find it slightly sickening to discuss the death penalty based on a financial imperative) as the legal regulations would still have to be as rigorous, regardless of what sort of criminal was under consideration. And yes, I would probably want the person dead, but as has ben stated by someone (I forget who) already in this thread - this isn't the basis for anything; the legal system is imporatnt as it takes such emotion out of the equation.

[Mibbes Aye]

Not everyone can be successfully rehabilitated.

Lest anyone gets confused and think I blindly support killing criminals, that's not the case and it never has been. I reserve this punishment for the worst of the worst, for those men and women who truly pose a great danger to the public at large.

You don't know until you try. And the problem with killing people is it removes the option of trying.

As for the bit about posing the greatest danger - how can someone do that from behind bars?

[Mibbes Aye]

But there could be an argument for blind vengence.
If a serial murderer / rapist inflicted the worst on your child and was then found guilty - you may well wish that person dead .

The act of execution doesn't cost more than a life behind bars - it's the legal system that costs. A high percentage of those sentenced to death in the US don't actually have their sentence carried out (eg Kenny Ritchie) and subsequently end up serving life via a lengthy and costly appeals process.
In KR's case, it seems crazy to impose a death sentence for the crime of arson where the evidence is sketchy
Imho - if you're going to retain a death sentence it should be only for people for whom rehabilitation is unlikely or near impossible; repeat offenders; multiple murderers etc.
Shouldn't be too difficult to legislate for.

How can you decide on who rehabilitation may work for until you attempt that process?

I think it would be extraordinarily hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is incapable of being rehabilitated.

[Mibbes Aye]

But the cost would be the same (I is also find it slightly sickening to discuss the death penalty based on a financial imperative) as the legal regulations would still have to be as rigorous, regardless of what sort of criminal was under consideration. And yes, I would probably want the person dead, but as has ben stated by someone (I forget who) already in this thread - this isn't the basis for anything; the legal system is imporatnt as it takes such emotion out of the equation.

:agree: A legal system based on emotional responses is no better than an adult version of a primary school playground.

[alex plode]

How can you decide on who rehabilitation may work for until you attempt that process?

I think it would be extraordinarily hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is incapable of being rehabilitated.

I'd like to see your rehabilitation plan for some of the patients held in the state hospital, Carstairs. :greengrin

[da-robster]

The death penalty is wrong. How could anyone claim moral superiority by doing exactly what the criminal has done in the first place.
Also its very ironic the number of christians that support the death penalty. With one of the stick out lines from the bible is, 'thou shalt not kill'.

Death also is the easy way out. They have no reflection on the pain they cause. If anyone commited such a crime against me, i'd want them to suffer. Not a quick needle/ electric dance/whatever, and then thats that.

Objection! :greengrin Does it not also say in the bible eye for eye limb for limb and life for life. :cool2:

Apart from that I agree that the death penalty is just wrong. The perpertrator has family too, but more overridingly do you think the family of that shopkeeper really cares about what I you or anyone at the computer has to say. Maybe they would not want the death penalty on another maybe they had been campaigning all their life for the end of the death penalty. Maybe they woudn't .To be fair can you actually make any comment from the horrific murder because in all honesty to the affected really care if it comes from a pompous man who sees himself worthy to judge other peoples lives even if it would cause ruin to the rentire legal system :greengrin:

[alex plode]

But the cost would be the same (I is also find it slightly sickening to discuss the death penalty based on a financial imperative) as the legal regulations would still have to be as rigorous, regardless of what sort of criminal was under consideration. And yes, I would probably want the person dead, but as has ben stated by someone (I forget who) already in this thread - this isn't the basis for anything; the legal system is imporatnt as it takes such emotion out of the equation.

But why shouldn't the victims feelings be the basis for anything ? - Surely a civilised society should cater more for the victims and families left behind after serious crime ?
If my child or partner was brutally murdered by a repeat-offending psychopath, maybe (as you say) you'd want that person dead. It could even be considered sickening to see that person serve a sentence in relative luxury.
Imagine how relatives of Denis Neilson feel , seeing him take the prison service to the court of human rights, due to lack of adult material in prison.

The entire death sentence debate is a sickening one by it's very nature. Whether that's talking about the costs involved, how it's administered or to who.

[Mibbes Aye]

I'd like to see your rehabilitation plan for some of the patients held in the state hospital, Carstairs. :greengrin

:greengrin

:singing: "..The road is lo-ong............" :greengrin

[HibsMax]

But I don't know what that achieves other than just blind vengeance. I understand that an execution actually costs more than life in prison so I don't think that can be a consideration. Knowing that their crimes will be punishable by death isn't going to deter the sort of criminal who 'serially, kidnaps, tortures, rapes and kills young girls'.
What it achieves is preventing that person from ever committing a crime again (as does life imprisonment without chance of parole). It might not deter them from killing once, twice, three times, etc. but, once caught and punished for their crime I think it's safe to say (s)he won't commit that crime again.

I think the whole deterrent argument is on thin ice, for both sides. I don't know how anyone can prove that the death penalty works as a deterrent or not. I am sure it prevents some people from committing crime but not everyone. Those people who are against the death penalty will say that since there are still people out there committing capital crimes that the death penalty does not work as a deterrent. Then there are people like me who believe that the death penalty will deter some people but how do I prove that? It's not like you can simply ask people.

[HibsMax]

You don't know until you try. And the problem with killing people is it removes the option of trying.
Correct. I am not saying kill everyone. Keep the death penalty for such cases as warrant it.


As for the bit about posing the greatest danger - how can someone do that from behind bars?
That is also true but a couple of things have to happen. The person has to be very secure i.e., no chance of escape. They also have to be in a position where they cannot harm people behind bars. Lastly, life HAS to mean life. No parole.


What is really sickening are the cases you read about a person who commits a capital crime, serves some time, is releases and commits the same crime again. Why persist in trying to rehabilitate someone like that?

[steakbake]

Objection! :greengrin Does it not also say in the bible eye for eye limb for limb and life for life. :cool2:

Apart from that I agree that the death penalty is just wrong. The perpertrator has family too, but more overridingly do you think the family of that shopkeeper really cares about what I you or anyone at the computer has to say. Maybe they would not want the death penalty on another maybe they had been campaigning all their life for the end of the death penalty. Maybe they woudn't .To be fair can you actually make any comment from the horrific murder because in all honesty to the affected really care if it comes from a pompous man who sees himself worthy to judge other peoples lives even if it would cause ruin to the rentire legal system :greengrin:

The bible also tells us to keep menstruating women in buildings separate to the rest of the village.

There is method in it's madness but i wouldnt go basing political decisions on it either way. :cool2:

[Big Ed]

You don't know until you try. And the problem with killing people is it removes the option of trying.

As for the bit about posing the greatest danger - how can someone do that from behind bars?

I'm definitely against the death penalty but the bit in bold is just wrong - Robert Black, William Beggs, Ian Brady are simply unfit for any form of re-introduction into society.

In his book, John McVicar stated that he thought that Brady was so consumed by hate that it would eventually overwhelm and torment him. I like that thought.

[LiverpoolHibs]

What it achieves is preventing that person from ever committing a crime again (as does life imprisonment without chance of parole). It might not deter them from killing once, twice, three times, etc. but, once caught and punished for their crime I think it's safe to say (s)he won't commit that crime again.

I think the whole deterrent argument is on thin ice, for both sides. I don't know how anyone can prove that the death penalty works as a deterrent or not. I am sure it prevents some people from committing crime but not everyone. Those people who are against the death penalty will say that since there are still people out there committing capital crimes that the death penalty does not work as a deterrent. Then there are people like me who believe that the death penalty will deter some people but how do I prove that? It's not like you can simply ask people.
Exactly. And which one of those is more humane?

[Hibrandenburg]

But I don't know what that achieves other than just blind vengeance. I understand that an execution actually costs more than life in prison so I don't think that can be a consideration. Knowing that their crimes will be punishable by death isn't going to deter the sort of criminal who 'serially, kidnaps, tortures, rapes and kills young girls'.

Not if we sold tickets to watch it at the national stadium with live coverage on Sky Box Office pay per view. :chop:

[da-robster]

The bible also tells us to keep menstruating women in buildings separate to the rest of the village.

There is method in it's madness but i wouldnt go basing political decisions on it either way. :cool2:

I'm not basing my opinion on the bible I 'm just illustrating whoalmost all statistics can be misinterprated. Anyway I'm way out of my depth here I think I'll give this thread a miss

[GhostofBolivar]

I'd like to see your rehabilitation plan for some of the patients held in the state hospital, Carstairs. :greengrin

Many of whom are by definition insane and often cannot be held responsible for their actions, thus excluding them from being executed. See also: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6925390.stm

[steakbake]

I'd like to see your rehabilitation plan for some of the patients held in the state hospital, Carstairs. :greengrin

I knew a guy who went to Carstairs. At the time, he was going through a very very rough patch with his mental health and that of course, is no excuse for what he did, but it might be an explanation.

He's out now and is managing to hold down a job and seems to be living a normal life.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Taxi driver in "i'm right and everone else is wrong" shocker!!!

Why not stick to the points being discussed rather than launching emotive personal attacks to distract people from the fact that you don't have an answer to their questions.

You were getting on my nerves, because you were failing to contribute anything to the debate other than using simplistic labels such as "pinko" and "commie" rather than answer questions that were being raised.

I suppose we can add "taxi driver" to that list now.

I have views on the death penalty, however - like many - they aren't firm views. I am willing to listen to sensible, evidence based, arguments and then make up my mind. Can you say the same thing?

[HibsMax]

Exactly. And which one of those is more humane?
I don't know. Do you? My concern really isn't with how humane it is but I doubt rotting away in a 7 x 12 jail cell for the rest of your life is any more humane than the electric chair or lethal injection.

[Pretty Boy]

Why not stick to the points being discussed rather than launching emotive personal attacks to distract people from the fact that you don't have an answer to their questions.

You were getting on my nerves, because you were failing to contribute anything to the debate other than using simplistic labels such as "pinko" and "commie" rather than answer questions that were being raised.

I suppose we can add "taxi driver" to that list now.

I have views on the death penalty, however - like many - they aren't firm views. I am willing to listen to sensible, evidence based, arguments and then make up my mind. Can you say the same thing?

This is a key problem i have with ever trying to debate anything with Mr Corrie Greens. He has no tolerance of anyone else who has an opinion which may differ from his own.

Everyone who doesn't agree with him gets shot down with petty jibes that a 5 year old would be embarrassed by.

The whole point of debate is to stick to facts and opinions and reach your own conclusions. This thread has raised some very interesting points regarding eugenics, moral issues, cost to the taxpayer and so on. The only person who has committed little to this thread is the OP, Corrie Greens himself.

[steakbake]

This is a key problem i have with ever trying to debate anything with Mr Corrie Greens. He has no tolerance of anyone else who has an opinion which may differ from his own.

Everyone who doesn't agree with him gets shot down with petty jibes that a 5 year old would be embarrassed by.

The whole point of debate is to stick to facts and opinions and reach your own conclusions. This thread has raised some very interesting points regarding eugenics, moral issues, cost to the taxpayer and so on. The only person who has committed little to this thread is the OP, Corrie Greens himself.

Raving right winger in "everyone's a commie or a hippy" shocker!!!

Just the kind of follower the Conservative Party needs at a time when they seem to be trying to adopt a more human face!

[LiverpoolHibs]

I don't know. Do you? My concern really isn't with how humane it is but I doubt rotting away in a 7 x 12 jail cell for the rest of your life is any more humane than the electric chair or lethal injection.
When you put it like that....

[LiverpoolHibs]

This is a key problem i have with ever trying to debate anything with Mr Corrie Greens. He has no tolerance of anyone else who has an opinion which may differ from his own.

Everyone who doesn't agree with him gets shot down with petty jibes that a 5 year old would be embarrassed by.

The whole point of debate is to stick to facts and opinions and reach your own conclusions. This thread has raised some very interesting points regarding eugenics, moral issues, cost to the taxpayer and so on. The only person who has committed little to this thread is the OP, Corrie Greens himself.
Quite. Having re-read the thread he hasn't actually managed a single cogent argument.

[steakbake]

I don't know. Do you? My concern really isn't with how humane it is but I doubt rotting away in a 7 x 12 jail cell for the rest of your life is any more humane than the electric chair or lethal injection.

Maybe cons should be given the choice? :dunno:

I happen to agree with mercy killings and assisted suicide. So why not let a prisoner decide?

If a murderer needs to be kept on suicide watch, maybe we should stop watching?

Damn you Corrie Greens!! This right wing stuff is contagious!! :wink:

[HibbyGuBrath]

Maybe cons should be given the choice? :dunno:

I happen to agree with mercy killings and assisted suicide. So why not let a prisoner decide?

If a murderer needs to be kept on suicide watch, maybe we should stop watching?

Damn you Corrie Greens!! This right wing stuff is contagious!! :wink:
No, that's liberalism BS... the right to choose ;)

[Pretty Boy]

Maybe cons should be given the choice? :dunno:

I happen to agree with mercy killings and assisted suicide. So why not let a prisoner decide?

If a murderer needs to be kept on suicide watch, maybe we should stop watching?

Damn you Corrie Greens!! This right wing stuff is contagious!! :wink:

I am totally in agreement with you regarding mercy killings and assisted suicide, if someone is terminally ill and wants to die with their dignity intact then fair enough.

When it comes to a murderer being allowed to kill themselves or having the choice between the death penalty and imprisonment i think it's a totally different kettle of fish. I'm not in agreement with, say, a depressed person being allowed medical assistance in taking their own life as they have a condition which is treatable. Generally most murderers, rapists etc will also have a treatble mental health complaint and the choice of the death penalty or imprisonment should not be given to them.

This would be, IMO, extreme libertarian anarchy.

[steakbake]

No, that's liberalism BS... the right to choose ;)

Hurray, I'm not a Conservative!!!! :greengrin:duck:

I am sure my Political Compass mentioned something about Libertarianism.

[alex plode]

I knew a guy who went to Carstairs. At the time, he was going through a very very rough patch with his mental health and that of course, is no excuse for what he did, but it might be an explanation.

He's out now and is managing to hold down a job and seems to be living a normal life.

This of course is the norm and thankfully so.

There are however some inmates who both legal & medical experts acknowledge will never be safe for release. Furthermore, some of those inmates would rather not be alive. Ian Brady has wanted to kill himself for ages.
Under these circumstances, and bearing in mind the extraordinary cost of keeping one high-security offender locked-up and drugged, isn't there an argument for voluntary euthenasia at least ?

[AndyP]

This of course is the norm and thankfully so.

There are however some inmates who both legal & medical experts acknowledge will never be safe for release. Furthermore, some of those inmates would rather not be alive. Ian Brady has wanted to kill himself for ages.
Under these circumstances, and bearing in mind the extraordinary cost of keeping one high-security offender locked-up and drugged, isn't there an argument for voluntary euthenasia at least ?


There is then a perverse arguement that if Brady is so pained by being in jail that his death would ease his suffering and anguish then perhaps we should do everything medically possible to ensure he lives for a long, long time

[New Corrie]

Quite. Having re-read the thread he hasn't actually managed a single cogent argument.


I thought the link was argument enough. Quite happy to read all the posts, and quite happy to respond to the opposing views. Sadly it's all irrelevent given that most people vote for criminal friendly parties and the restoration of the death penalty isn't going to happen. All the rehabilitators and Social Workers can sleep tonight, sadly the victims of crime can't.

[duncs]

I thought the link was argument enough. Quite happy to read all the posts, and quite happy to respond to the opposing views. Sadly it's all irrelevent given that most people vote for criminal friendly parties and the restoration of the death penalty isn't going to happen. All the rehabilitators and Social Workers can sleep tonight, sadly the victims of crime can't.

What a load of tosh! How can you argue that? We've lived for 10 years under a succession of draconian Home Ministers that even the Tories would never have dreamt of. Also, how can you explain that prison numbers are at an all-time high, whilst at the same time the crime rate is down? (Obviously I know the crime figures are flawed, you can essentially cut them anyway to make an argument, but the concensus is that crime is down).

I'm not sure what your problem with Social Workers are because every single one I know are doing their best (and almost all of them above and beyond the call of duty) for a frankly pathetic wage.

I've watched this debate with interest, but your comments recently CG have shown you're clearly a living enbodiment of the Daily Mail.

[GhostofBolivar]

I thought the link was argument enough. Quite happy to read all the posts, and quite happy to respond to the opposing views. Sadly it's all irrelevent given that most people vote for criminal friendly parties and the restoration of the death penalty isn't going to happen. All the rehabilitators and Social Workers can sleep tonight, sadly the victims of crime can't.

As good an argument in favour of social work as I've found (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/ive-got-kids-who-sleep-with-knives-under-their-pillows-834553.html)

[Phil D. Rolls]

This is a key problem i have with ever trying to debate anything with Mr Corrie Greens. He has no tolerance of anyone else who has an opinion which may differ from his own.

Everyone who doesn't agree with him gets shot down with petty jibes that a 5 year old would be embarrassed by.

The whole point of debate is to stick to facts and opinions and reach your own conclusions. This thread has raised some very interesting points regarding eugenics, moral issues, cost to the taxpayer and so on. The only person who has committed little to this thread is the OP, Corrie Greens himself.

Some might say he is an attention seeker, who wants to be noticed at any cost. He certainly goes out of his way to provoke - and that's no bad thing. However, there has to be an end product, and he never has one.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I thought the link was argument enough. Quite happy to read all the posts, and quite happy to respond to the opposing views. Sadly it's all irrelevent given that most people vote for criminal friendly parties and the restoration of the death penalty isn't going to happen. All the rehabilitators and Social Workers can sleep tonight, sadly the victims of crime can't.

Why not respond to them then! What's the big deal with social workers by the way, they might be a bit wooly, bit like it or not, some people need their help.

Just as the blind need help to cross the road, some people need help to live their lives without harming themselves or others. Life is a lot more complicated than you seem to think.

[alex plode]

What a load of tosh! How can you argue that? We've lived for 10 years under a succession of draconian Home Ministers that even the Tories would never have dreamt of. Also, how can you explain that prison numbers are at an all-time high, whilst at the same time the crime rate is down? (Obviously I know the crime figures are flawed, you can essentially cut them anyway to make an argument, but the concensus is that crime is down).

I'm not sure what your problem with Social Workers are because every single one I know are doing their best (and almost all of them above and beyond the call of duty) for a frankly pathetic wage.

I've watched this debate with interest, but your comments recently CG have shown you're clearly a living enbodiment of the Daily Mail.

2006/2007 figures show crime rates are generally stable, with some crime rates down whilst others, like robbery, drug offences & violent crime were on the increase.
Social Workers on the whole do an excellent job in trying circumstances but of the many I come across - few consider the basic-grade rate "pathetic".

[New Corrie]

Why not respond to them then! What's the big deal with social workers by the way, they might be a bit wooly, bit like it or not, some people need their help.

Just as the blind need help to cross the road, some people need help to live their lives without harming themselves or others. Life is a lot more complicated than you seem to think.


Life is very complex and people who need help should certainly get it. It seems that the help is allocated in the wrong direction IMO. I was trying to stick up for victims and not perpetrators. You accuse me of evading the issues, yet nobody could answer my point that you get young men with in excess of a 100 convictions (including violence) walking the streets. Surely that can't be right! By all means help someone, and give them chances....but 100 chances!

[Phil D. Rolls]

Life is very complex and people who need help should certainly get it. It seems that the help is allocated in the wrong direction IMO. I was trying to stick up for victims and not perpetrators. You accuse me of evading the issues, yet nobody could answer my point that you get young men with in excess of a 100 convictions (including violence) walking the streets. Surely that can't be right! By all means help someone, and give them chances....but 100 chances!

That is a dilemma, what to do with those who refuse to comply with the law at all costs (we're getting quite a bit away from the original debate here by the way).

I wish all it would take is to give them a good kicking. However there is no real evidence that it would work. If anything, it would probably serve to justify their sense that violence is acceptable. It would just give them an excuse.

Where do we find evidence of what works and what doesn't. Are there many people with 100 convictions walking the streets, or are these the extreme cases?

Tagging seems to work.

[AndyM_1875]

My biggest problem with the death penalty is that the countries who use it are typically immature banana republic juntas, religious fundamentalist fruitcakes or human rights abusers. Life should mean life and I do not want the UK to stand shoulder to shoulder with Iran and Saudi Arabia thank you very much.

Then you have the case of the southern states of the US where the only people who do well out of it are the lawyers in whose interest it is to keep prisoners on Death Row as long as possible so that they can get as much cash as possible as appeal after appeal is kicked off. The process can take 20 years . Tell me what is the point of killing someone after 20 years?
On top of this justice there often is based upon your colour and money to buy the best lawyer. If you are poor and black you have no chance. I read recently about Texas, one of the more trigger happy states, where there are a number of cases coming up for wrongful execution prosecutions of the state are being brought to the fore the result of which could well bankrupt the states budgets for a long time to come.

Tory types can jump up and down and scream as much as they like though, its a relic of the past and it ain't coming back. Basically we could not afford it now as the price of getting it wrong is simply too high now in this litigious society and as our justice system is far from blind and a minority of our police are not free from corruption sadly.

[Hibrandenburg]

My biggest problem with the death penalty is that the countries who use it are typically immature banana republic juntas, religious fundamentalist fruitcakes or human rights abusers. Life should mean life and I do not want the UK to stand shoulder to shoulder with Iran and Saudi Arabia thank you very much.

Then you have the case of the southern states of the US where the only people who do well out of it are the lawyers in whose interest it is to keep prisoners on Death Row as long as possible so that they can get as much cash as possible as appeal after appeal is kicked off. The process can take 20 years . Tell me what is the point of killing someone after 20 years?
On top of this justice there often is based upon your colour and money to buy the best lawyer. If you are poor and black you have no chance. I read recently about Texas, one of the more trigger happy states, where there are a number of cases coming up for wrongful execution prosecutions of the state are being brought to the fore the result of which could well bankrupt the states budgets for a long time to come.

Tory types can jump up and down and scream as much as they like though, its a relic of the past and it ain't coming back. Basically we could not afford it now as the price of getting it wrong is simply too high now in this litigious society and as our justice system is far from blind and a minority of our police are not free from corruption sadly.

Good shout!

[HibsMax]

My biggest problem with the death penalty is that the countries who use it are typically immature banana republic juntas, religious fundamentalist fruitcakes or human rights abusers. Life should mean life and I do not want the UK to stand shoulder to shoulder with Iran and Saudi Arabia thank you very much.

Then you have the case of the southern states of the US where the only people who do well out of it are the lawyers in whose interest it is to keep prisoners on Death Row as long as possible so that they can get as much cash as possible as appeal after appeal is kicked off. The process can take 20 years . Tell me what is the point of killing someone after 20 years?
On top of this justice there often is based upon your colour and money to buy the best lawyer. If you are poor and black you have no chance. I read recently about Texas, one of the more trigger happy states, where there are a number of cases coming up for wrongful execution prosecutions of the state are being brought to the fore the result of which could well bankrupt the states budgets for a long time to come.

Tory types can jump up and down and scream as much as they like though, its a relic of the past and it ain't coming back. Basically we could not afford it now as the price of getting it wrong is simply too high now in this litigious society and as our justice system is far from blind and a minority of our police are not free from corruption sadly.
Like your arguments, well put, but (and you knew there was a but coming) it doesn't change my opinion on the death penalty. Perhaps me "problem" is that I look at the death penalty as it would exist in a perfect society where there wouldn't be 20 years of appeals, there would be no innocent people in jail, etc. In other words, I agree with the death penalty in principle. I honestly believe, hand on heart that people guilty of the most heinous crimes should suffer the ultimate punishment...which is death (that in itself is subjective, perhaps being kept alive and slowly tortured to near death for the rest of one's life would be a more fitting penalty?). But, for me, there are people out there who do not deserve to breath another breath, their crimes are that horrific.

A lot of the arguments against the death penalty e.g., innocent people being executed and the cost of the appeals process, are not actually related to the death penalty at all, they relate to the process. People are killed in car accidents all the time but I am not against letting people drive. People die in hospitals all the time but I am not against risky surgical procedures. People are victims of gun crimes but I am not against gun ownership (another hot potato). What I getting at here is that it's not the death penalty itself that is to blame, it's the process and it always has been.

Maybe I just have no heart or soul but, for me, if you are guilty of committing certain crimes, you deserve and ought to die. You deserve it because you should be punished for what you did and you ought to die because you pose a serious risk to the public at large.

And now for my own twist on things. People are animals. I think some people often forget that. I have no studies to back this up but I am fairly sure that other animals do not suffer unsociable behaviour. Justice is swift and harsh in the animal kingdom and we are a part of that kingdom. Sure, we are supposed to be civilised, and we are certainly more advanced than all / most other species but we are still animals and as such, follow some of the same codes. That's just my own take on things, I don't expect anyone else to agree. :D

[--------]

Like your arguments, well put, but (and you knew there was a but coming) it doesn't change my opinion on the death penalty. Perhaps me "problem" is that I look at the death penalty as it would exist in a perfect society where there wouldn't be 20 years of appeals, there would be no innocent people in jail, etc. In other words, I agree with the death penalty in principle. I honestly believe, hand on heart that people guilty of the most heinous crimes should suffer the ultimate punishment...which is death (that in itself is subjective, perhaps being kept alive and slowly tortured to near death for the rest of one's life would be a more fitting penalty?). But, for me, there are people out there who do not deserve to breath another breath, their crimes are that horrific.

A lot of the arguments against the death penalty e.g., innocent people being executed and the cost of the appeals process, are not actually related to the death penalty at all, they relate to the process. People are killed in car accidents all the time but I am not against letting people drive. People die in hospitals all the time but I am not against risky surgical procedures. People are victims of gun crimes but I am not against gun ownership (another hot potato). What I getting at here is that it's not the death penalty itself that is to blame, it's the process and it always has been.

Maybe I just have no heart or soul but, for me, if you are guilty of committing certain crimes, you deserve and ought to die. You deserve it because you should be punished for what you did and you ought to die because you pose a serious risk to the public at large.

And now for my own twist on things. People are animals. I think some people often forget that. I have no studies to back this up but I am fairly sure that other animals do not suffer unsociable behaviour. Justice is swift and harsh in the animal kingdom and we are a part of that kingdom. Sure, we are supposed to be civilised, and we are certainly more advanced than all / most other species but we are still animals and as such, follow some of the same codes. That's just my own take on things, I don't expect anyone else to agree. :D


Hey, Max. Thought you'd be in on this sooner or later.

I disagree about humans being animals - animals don't behave as badly as some humans do. I've never heard of an animal as loathsome or evil as Josef Mengele, for example.

As you know, I would tend to oppose the death-penalty in practice - I wouldn't trust our police or our judiciary to act honestly or impartially in the matter, and the thought of miscarriages of justice in capital cases appals me.

BUT - ask me if I would have pulled the lever on someone like Mengele, or Eichmann, or Ian Brady, or Myra Hindley, or Harold Shipman....

There are people in the world who would be nane the waur o' a guid hinging', as a certain Scottish High Court judge once remarked. I remember the day Peter Manuel was hanged, and I have to say I couldn't wish him back int he world - he was about as nasty a piece of work as any man could be. And I wouldn't have argued about either law or morality with Lord Mackay, the judge in his case - Lord Mackay was a great man in every sense of the word.

(At one time there was a sudden and serious increase in razor and knife attacks in Glasgow, with rather too many innocent bystanders ending up disfigured and disabled. Nobody seemed to have a clue what to do about this, until LM got two wee neds in front of hm in the dock, and when the 'guilty' verdict was delivered, he handed them out 20 years apiece, without the option. That wiped the smile off their faces, all right.)

So - am I a principled opponent of the death penalty, or would I be better being honest and say that for certain murders I consider that death is an appropriate punishment; my problem is that I don't trust the human beings who have to apply it? :cool2:

[HibsMax]

Hey, Max. Thought you'd be in on this sooner or later.

I disagree about humans being animals - animals don't behave as badly as some humans do. I've never heard of an animal as loathsome or evil as Josef Mengele, for example.

As you know, I would tend to oppose the death-penalty in practice - I wouldn't trust our police or our judiciary to act honestly or impartially in the matter, and the thought of miscarriages of justice in capital cases appals me.

BUT - ask me if I would have pulled the lever on someone like Mengele, or Eichmann, or Ian Brady, or Myra Hindley, or Harold Shipman....

There are people in the world who would be nane the waur o' a guid hinging', as a certain Scottish High Court judge once remarked. I remember the day Peter Manuel was hanged, and I have to say I couldn't wish him back int he world - he was about as nasty a piece of work as any man could be. And I wouldn't have argued about either law or morality with Lord Mackay, the judge in his case - Lord Mackay was a great man in every sense of the word.

(At one time there was a sudden and serious increase in razor and knife attacks in Glasgow, with rather too many innocent bystanders ending up disfigured and disabled. Nobody seemed to have a clue what to do about this, until LM got two wee neds in front of hm in the dock, and when the 'guilty' verdict was delivered, he handed them out 20 years apiece, without the option. That wiped the smile off their faces, all right.)

So - am I a principled opponent of the death penalty, or would I be better being honest and say that for certain murders I consider that death is an appropriate punishment; my problem is that I don't trust the human beings who have to apply it? :cool2:

Just to be clear, when I say "animals" I mean so literally i.e., we are living, breathing animals just like every other animal on the planet. Well, like most of them. :) While I admit that the planet is inhabited by many different and varied species, ultimately we are all animals and we spawn from the same beginnings....but that could start a religious debate and I'll be damned if I'm gonna start one of those here. :wink:

[--------]

Just to be clear, when I say "animals" I mean so literally i.e., we are living, breathing animals just like every other animal on the planet. Well, like most of them. :) While I admit that the planet is inhabited by many different and varied species, ultimately we are all animals and we spawn from the same beginnings....but that could start a religious debate and I'll be damned if I'm gonna start one of those here. :wink:


Yup, well, we're probably best keeping out of that.

I guess what I'm saying is that my head tells me that police and lawyers and judges aren't fit to be trusted with the power of life and death, but at the same time there are cases where my gut says that the death penalty is the only just punishment applicable.

But then, is MY judgment trustworthy in those cases?

John 8:7? :cool2:

[alex plode]

Wondered when Myra Hindley would come up. She'd be a prime candidate for the noose.

The trouble with killing people like Hindley and serial offenders like Robert Black is they often reveal other victims or locations of bodies whilst serving life terms .

Grieving relatives then get some form of closure. Victims of crime should always come first.

As for Andy 1875 - no the death sentence isn't the preserve of juntas and banana republics . You may not want to stand shoulder to shoulder with the saudis but our government and armed forces are happy to do so; rightly or wrongly.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Yup, well, we're probably best keeping out of that.

I guess what I'm saying is that my head tells me that police and lawyers and judges aren't fit to be trusted with the power of life and death, but at the same time there are cases where my gut says that the death penalty is the only just punishment applicable.

But then, is MY judgment trustworthy in those cases?

John 8:7? :cool2:

Is the manuel case not a good illustration of the dilemma? Evidence has recently come to light which suggests that aspects of his psychiatric history were witheld. So a fair trial wasn't possible.

At the same time, there can be no doubt he carried out heinous murders. This is where you get into the whole "mad or bad" debate. I have no doubt that we are better off without him in our society, but where is the morality in terminating someone who isn't responsible for their own actions?

If you go down that road, you end up in the realm of eugenics, and you can justify ending the life of anyone who is deemed "incomplete".

[LiverpoolHibs]

Hey, Max. Thought you'd be in on this sooner or later.

I disagree about humans being animals - animals don't behave as badly as some humans do. I've never heard of an animal as loathsome or evil as Josef Mengele, for example.

As you know, I would tend to oppose the death-penalty in practice - I wouldn't trust our police or our judiciary to act honestly or impartially in the matter, and the thought of miscarriages of justice in capital cases appals me.

BUT - ask me if I would have pulled the lever on someone like Mengele, or Eichmann, or Ian Brady, or Myra Hindley, or Harold Shipman....

There are people in the world who would be nane the waur o' a guid hinging', as a certain Scottish High Court judge once remarked. I remember the day Peter Manuel was hanged, and I have to say I couldn't wish him back int he world - he was about as nasty a piece of work as any man could be. And I wouldn't have argued about either law or morality with Lord Mackay, the judge in his case - Lord Mackay was a great man in every sense of the word.

(At one time there was a sudden and serious increase in razor and knife attacks in Glasgow, with rather too many innocent bystanders ending up disfigured and disabled. Nobody seemed to have a clue what to do about this, until LM got two wee neds in front of hm in the dock, and when the 'guilty' verdict was delivered, he handed them out 20 years apiece, without the option. That wiped the smile off their faces, all right.)

So - am I a principled opponent of the death penalty, or would I be better being honest and say that for certain murders I consider that death is an appropriate punishment; my problem is that I don't trust the human beings who have to apply it? :cool2:

I think there's a dichotomy to be made here. I have no problem with the execution of war-criminals/tyrants (the Nazis, Mussolini, Ceaucescu etc. etc.) probably on an entirely pragmatic basis.

[--------]

Is the manuel case not a good illustration of the dilemma? Evidence has recently come to light which suggests that aspects of his psychiatric history were witheld. So a fair trial wasn't possible.

At the same time, there can be no doubt he carried out heinous murders. This is where you get into the whole "mad or bad" debate. I have no doubt that we are better off without him in our society, but where is the morality in terminating someone who isn't responsible for their own actions?

If you go down that road, you end up in the realm of eugenics, and you can justify ending the life of anyone who is deemed "incomplete".


I have no problem with the hanging of Manuel. There's good reason to believe that he was guilty of at least twice as many murders as he was charged with.

If I understand the opinions of some contemporary "experts" and defence agents, a man who commits ONE murder is bad and can be sentenced to life imprisonment, death, whatever, but a man who kills 20 is obviously mad and should be put in hospital, so that a few years later another "expert" and another defence agent can get him out of there so he can kill someone else.

For murder, the bottom line should be that LIFE means LIFE at the very least. And for a serial killer, I see no reason why each murder should receive a life sentence, to run concurrently as they so often do in the States.

I know no one would ever serve their whole sentence, but they could serve as much of it as they could.... :devil:

[AndyM_1875]

Wondered when Myra Hindley would come up. She'd be a prime candidate for the noose.

The trouble with killing people like Hindley and serial offenders like Robert Black is they often reveal other victims or locations of bodies whilst serving life terms .


Wouldn't disagree with any of that. From what the news repirts have said it may well be that Black has yet got some crimes to reveal.



Grieving relatives then get some form of closure. Victims of crime should always come first.


Do they? It doesn't bring their relative back and if it is handed out wrongly you create a whole new raft of victims.



As for Andy 1875 - no the death sentence isn't the preserve of juntas and banana republics . You may not want to stand shoulder to shoulder with the saudis but our government and armed forces are happy to do so; rightly or wrongly.

Military operations should not be put in the same breath as capital crime within the UK. Like most I have great reservations about the UK's presence within the middle East, I doubt you will find many UK service personnel with a high opinion of the Saudis and the reasons for being there but that is another thread entirely and that IMHO takes us off topic.

I agree with Doddie when he talks about concurrent sentencing, I have no issue at all with the worst offenders getting handed down a sentence of 485 years in prison like they do in the non Death penalty US States.

[HibsMax]

Yup, well, we're probably best keeping out of that.

I guess what I'm saying is that my head tells me that police and lawyers and judges aren't fit to be trusted with the power of life and death, but at the same time there are cases where my gut says that the death penalty is the only just punishment applicable.

But then, is MY judgment trustworthy in those cases?

John 8:7? :cool2:
you hit upon a very concerning issue...the human factor. Do I trust people to get make the correct decisions? Hmmmm. Yes and No. Or maybe that should be, No and Yes. I don't think the decision should be made by one person i.e., one judge. I think we need a panel of people from varied backgrounds.

Unfortunately humans are error prone and corruptible, a bad combination. By the time we get to the stage of having "pure" people, we probably won't have any crime at all. Imagine that!?

[HibsMax]

BTW, if ever there was a reason for me to be against the death penalty, this (http://www.wm3.org/splash.php) is it.

[The Green Goblin]

I think there's a dichotomy to be made here. I have no problem with the execution of war-criminals/tyrants (the Nazis, Mussolini, Ceaucescu etc. etc.) probably on an entirely pragmatic basis.

Given the catastrophic civilian death toll in Iraq and Afghanistan running into at least tens of thousands, would you add George W Bush and Tony Blair to that list?

GG

[Dashing Bob S]

Given the catastrophic civilian death toll in Iraq and Afghanistan running into at least tens of thousands, would you add George W Bush and Tony Blair to that list?

GG

I certainly would.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Given the catastrophic civilian death toll in Iraq and Afghanistan running into at least tens of thousands, would you add George W Bush and Tony Blair to that list?

GG
Erm. Tricky one. I certainly wouldn't mourn if either of them were assassinated and I'd certainly like to see them prosecuted for war crimes but I don't think there would be any pragmatic basis for their execution, so no. It's not the same situation with Ceaucescu/Mussolini et al where they would be a rallying point for their supporters.

[Betty Boop]

Given the catastrophic civilian death toll in Iraq and Afghanistan running into at least tens of thousands, would you add George W Bush and Tony Blair to that list?

GG:agree:Absolutely!

[RyeSloan]

Capital punishment is state sponsored murder.

I believe quite strongly that no human should have the power to take anothers life no matter the be the man in the street or a judge in a court.

I do however agree that some murder sentances here are just ridiculous...it's not unknown for murderers to be release after 14 - 16 years....now that is hardly a fair sentance for taking anothers life.

Problem with Britian is that we are far far to keen spend an absolute fortune sending thousands upon thousands to jail for minor offences yet far too often don't punish enough those that have done the gravest of crimes.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Derek Bentley was hanged 50 odd years ago for the murder of a policeman. It was actually Christopher Craig that pulled the trigger - if Derek had done it the policeman would still have been alive, due to the fact that he was nowhere near the constable.

My point is, Craig went to prison, served his time and emerged to make a "normal" life for himself as an engineer. I'm not commenting on the sentence as such, other than that if he had been hanged as well, he would never have rehabilitated and made a contribution to society.

He didn't hang, and the policeman is still dead. Bentley hanged and the policeman is still dead. Which sentence benefited society more?