SO16_Saint Posted 29 October, 2010 Share Posted 29 October, 2010 Debate on BBC breakfast this morning about murderers and life sentences. I personally think that a murderer or someone who gets 'life' - it should mean for life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Saint Posted 29 October, 2010 Share Posted 29 October, 2010 Probably, although if you did that without any change of parole their would be no op;portunity for rehabilitation. It would probably be more humane to execute them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Block 18 Posted 29 October, 2010 Share Posted 29 October, 2010 and cheaper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 29 October, 2010 Share Posted 29 October, 2010 Execution for severe rape, peadophilia, murder/torture charges and serial murder. Life should really mean life more or less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norwaysaint Posted 29 October, 2010 Share Posted 29 October, 2010 and cheaper The death penalty generally costs far more than life imprisonment. Each case costs about 2 million dollars in the states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Somewhere In Northam Posted 29 October, 2010 Share Posted 29 October, 2010 The death penalty generally costs far more than life imprisonment. Each case costs about 2 million dollars in the states. a Hanging should be cheap as chips, 5 bobbies @ 5 pound an hour and a hangman, a possibly a new noose for each executee, you could even charge the public admittance to break even, trust the yanks to make a buisness out of the death penalty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 29 October, 2010 Share Posted 29 October, 2010 The death penalty generally costs far more than life imprisonment. Each case costs about 2 million dollars in the states. One chair, one bullet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dog Posted 29 October, 2010 Share Posted 29 October, 2010 Any prisoner who has been given a life sentence will be under licence for life. It doesn't mean that they will serve all their days in prison, but when they get released they still have to obey by the rules or they will thrown back in prison before you can say Devil 35. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robsk II Posted 29 October, 2010 Share Posted 29 October, 2010 One chair, one bullet. When it's one need, in the night. One love, we get to share it. Leaves you baby, if you don't care for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveygwyatt Posted 29 October, 2010 Share Posted 29 October, 2010 Any prisoner who has been given a life sentence will be under licence for life. It doesn't mean that they will serve all their days in prison, but when they get released they still have to obey by the rules or they will thrown back in prison before you can say Devil 35. I agree, I think maybe prison should be harder ( hard labour etc). but you need to give the covict the chance to be rehabilated. I would however consider life for repeat convictions.. 3 strikes rule maybe. Having said this i guess if anything happened to someone i know, a someone was given life.. I would guess my views may be different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 29 October, 2010 Share Posted 29 October, 2010 Yes, "life" does already mean "life" - they are on a "life tariff". Are you actually asking should they spend all of that tariff in prison? If it is pre-meditated murder then I think they should spend the rest of their life in prison with no parole. Disagree entirely with execution on two main points: Firstly only those too poor to get decent legal representation end up being executed. Richer murderers will either plea bargain down to manslaughter or get off entirely. Secondly there is always the risk that innocent people will be wrongly executed (think how many high profile miscarriages of justice there have been in the last couple of decades). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 29 October, 2010 Share Posted 29 October, 2010 Yes, "life" does already mean "life" - they are on a "life tariff". Are you actually asking should they spend all of that tariff in prison? If it is pre-meditated murder then I think they should spend the rest of their life in prison with no parole. Disagree entirely with execution on two main points: Firstly only those too poor to get decent legal representation end up being executed. Richer murderers will either plea bargain down to manslaughter or get off entirely. Secondly there is always the risk that innocent people will be wrongly executed (think how many high profile miscarriages of justice there have been in the last couple of decades). Which is why Excecution should only be carried out in the most extreme of cases. But i still believe that we should be executing the most dangerous and callous members of our society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 29 October, 2010 Share Posted 29 October, 2010 I agree, I think maybe prison should be harder ( hard labour etc). Agree. Which is why i'd be in favour of a reintroduction of treadmills to create electricity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 29 October, 2010 Share Posted 29 October, 2010 Yes, "life" does already mean "life" - they are on a "life tariff". Are you actually asking should they spend all of that tariff in prison? If it is pre-meditated murder then I think they should spend the rest of their life in prison with no parole. Disagree entirely with execution on two main points: Firstly only those too poor to get decent legal representation end up being executed. Richer murderers will either plea bargain down to manslaughter or get off entirely. Secondly there is always the risk that innocent people will be wrongly executed (think how many high profile miscarriages of justice there have been in the last couple of decades). I disagree with the death penalty too but I don't understand the logic of your first reason. It's not a reason to oppose the death penalty at all. If you believe the death penalty is "right" then the mere fact that some people might be able to buy their way out of it shouldn't stop it being applied to those that deserve it and can't buy their way out of it. Better to execute only relatively poor people than no people at all; if it is deserved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 29 October, 2010 Share Posted 29 October, 2010 Benjii, I think it is important that laws are not just morally justifiable in their own right but also that they work properly and are fair to all sections of society. It not a moral objection to the death penalty, it is an objection on the basis that application of the death penalty won't be fairly applied to rich and poor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 29 October, 2010 Share Posted 29 October, 2010 Which is why Excecution should only be carried out in the most extreme of cases. But i still believe that we should be executing the most dangerous and callous members of our society. You say that but would the death penalty have been applied to the Guildford Four or the Birmingham Six? They were pretty extreme case with high loss of life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 29 October, 2010 Share Posted 29 October, 2010 Benjii, I think it is important that laws are not just morally justifiable in their own right but also that they work properly and are fair to all sections of society. It not a moral objection to the death penalty, it is an objection on the basis that application of the death penalty won't be fairly applied to rich and poor Of course it will, as i said, you only impose the death penalty to the worst attrocities, and more importantly those crimes that have been pretty much proven beyond all reasonable doubt. Yeah i get the fact if you have a fair amount of cash you may get away with things but i just can't see that being true to the crimes i am talking about. I just don't know why part of the taxes i contribute to this country goes to keeping some of the worst scum on the planet alive, i also do not agree with all of this human rights bullsh*t (i know nobody has brought this up on here yet) because as far as i am concerned as soon as you break someones human rights to the degree of rape, torture or murder than you clearly do not respect them and therefore they should no longer apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 29 October, 2010 Share Posted 29 October, 2010 Benjii, I think it is important that laws are not just morally justifiable in their own right but also that they work properly and are fair to all sections of society. It not a moral objection to the death penalty, it is an objection on the basis that application of the death penalty won't be fairly applied to rich and poor But isn't the same true of any custodial sentence, or indeed any judicial process? If it is true that the amount of money you have has a bearing on what we might call your "judicial success" then the same logic can be applied to the application of any sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 29 October, 2010 Share Posted 29 October, 2010 Of course it will, as i said, you only impose the death penalty to the worst attrocities, and more importantly those crimes that have been pretty much proven beyond all reasonable doubt. Yeah i get the fact if you have a fair amount of cash you may get away with things but i just can't see that being true to the crimes i am talking about. I just don't know why part of the taxes i contribute to this country goes to keeping some of the worst scum on the planet alive, i also do not agree with all of this human rights bullsh*t (i know nobody has brought this up on here yet) because as far as i am concerned as soon as you break someones human rights to the degree of rape, torture or murder than you clearly do not respect them and therefore they should no longer apply. The first paragraph just doesn't stack up. All crimes are proven "beyond reasonable doubt". But putting that choice of wording aside we could say instead, "those crimes where there is no doubt whatsoever that the crime happened, where we can all be happy that there is no miscarriage of justice". The challenge then is to write down what the test will be for establishing that. How it will be determined in practice whether the criteria are met. If you can't do that in such a way that will never result in a case on the boundaries, in shades of grey, then you must accept that there is always a risk of executing an innocent person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 29 October, 2010 Share Posted 29 October, 2010 You say that but would the death penalty have been applied to the Guildford Four or the Birmingham Six? They were pretty extreme case with high loss of life. True but both cases were not without incredibly strong cases from the defence and one would hope that the level of forensic science these days would negate the inadequacies found in the Birmingham 6 trial. Also, in both sets of trials it was pretty clear that the cases were 'constructed' by the police to enable them to close the case, which in its own case is sickening. Perversing the course of justice in such a way should equally hold a hefty prison sentance and in the off chance that those found guilty of perverting the course of justice within which someone has been handed the death sentance should equally be charged for murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 29 October, 2010 Share Posted 29 October, 2010 The first paragraph just doesn't stack up. All crimes are proven "beyond reasonable doubt". But putting that choice of wording aside we could say instead, "those crimes where there is no doubt whatsoever that the crime happened, where we can all be happy that there is no miscarriage of justice". The challenge then is to write down what the test will be for establishing that. How it will be determined in practice whether the criteria are met. If you can't do that in such a way that will never result in a case on the boundaries, in shades of grey, then you must accept that there is always a risk of executing an innocent person. I can see how difficult it is, law always is. And yeah that was pretty much the wording that i was looking to use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 29 October, 2010 Share Posted 29 October, 2010 I can see how difficult it is, law always is. And yeah that was pretty much the wording that i was looking to use. It is indeed a very tricky issue. Some crimes are so awful that you feel there can be little complaining about carrying out an execution but I can't imagine anything much worse than being condemned when innocent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
for_heaven's_Saint Posted 29 October, 2010 Share Posted 29 October, 2010 'Lifers' should be in prison for life unless there are clear signs of rehabilitation IMO, in which case they are allowed out after a minimum term. Very hard to judge I know though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 29 October, 2010 Share Posted 29 October, 2010 True but both cases were not without incredibly strong cases from the defence and one would hope that the level of forensic science these days would negate the inadequacies found in the Birmingham 6 trial. Also, in both sets of trials it was pretty clear that the cases were 'constructed' by the police to enable them to close the case, which in its own case is sickening. Perversing the course of justice in such a way should equally hold a hefty prison sentance and in the off chance that those found guilty of perverting the course of justice within which someone has been handed the death sentance should equally be charged for murder. The fact is that had capital punishment been in place in the 70s then the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four would have been wrongly put to death. Just because capital punishment is an option shouldn't mean that extra scrutiny is applied to cases. All serious charges should be tried to the utmost scrutiny anyway. A conviction beyond reasonable doubt surely means that the judge and jury have discounted any prosecution shenanegans . Given a prevailing political climate and a corrupt police force the mentioned cases show that it is pretty easy to gain an incorrect decision. You say that you could have very serious penalty for those committing perjury but we've seen time and again how difficult it is to get any sort of decision of wrong doing against the police. That would only become more difficult if coppers were potentially liable to be hanged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moonraker Posted 29 October, 2010 Share Posted 29 October, 2010 The first thing that must be established is what sort of justice you want, a system based on Retribution (e.g. USA, IRAN) or one based on Rehabilitation (most of Europe). Whichever system you choose must be applied universally to all criminal acts, from shop lifting to murder and rape. In general a retribution system does not cope well with mitigation e.g. stealing a food to stave off hunger would result in the same punishment as stealing food to sell for a profit. In the case of murder the USA get around the automatic death penalty by having different degrees of murder, in practice First Degree (death penalty) charges are reserved for the poor and marginalized members of society, the better off respectable members of society in the main get charged with non death penalty lesser degrees. Introducing such a system would mean the majority of murder charges would be made in the lesser degrees and the weight of evidence required to convict in the first degree would be greater. Our current system has a mandatory life tariff for Murder, the Judge (the clues in the name) decides on the evidence what the minimum term of imprisonment should be, all those convicted of the most horrendous and evil murders, Soham, Yorkshire Ripper, Mrs West etc will die in prison for them life is life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedAndWhite91 Posted 29 October, 2010 Share Posted 29 October, 2010 Execution, in principle, is spot on, but what if they are innocent all along? When I was at college a man came in to do a talk, he is called Nick Yarris, and in the 80's he was accused of rape and murder, and sentenced to death. He asked for further DNA tests to be done in 1989 but they proved inconclusive, but in 2003 further tests were done on a pair of gloves that were found in the victim's car and it proved his innocence. DNA from the gloves, and the sperm evidence appeared to originate from the same person. Not him. This proved his innocence. He spent 21 years in prison facing death for a crime he didn't commit. What if he had been executed and then they had found he was innocent after? There would have been an outcry. He was originally convicted to death as his guilt was "pretty much proven beyond all reasonable doubt", as S_S says. Turns out he was innocent all along though. Oh, and life should mean life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 29 October, 2010 Share Posted 29 October, 2010 Agree. Which is why i'd be in favour of a reintroduction of treadmills to create electricity. lol, thats a good one, id vote for that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 29 October, 2010 Share Posted 29 October, 2010 wasnt the last person to be executed in the uk shown to be innocent a few years back...that frickin sux. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocknrollman no2 Posted 29 October, 2010 Share Posted 29 October, 2010 We should never bring back the death penalty.How can you say its wrong to take a life,then the state does it as a punishment? In America the death penalty doesnt stop serious crime and most of those on death row are poor blacks,who cant afford expensive lawyers. As for life meaning life,then i agree with that. But i think for any sentence which doesnt mean life,then the chance of parole should be available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 29 October, 2010 Share Posted 29 October, 2010 Over 100 British people have been killed by released murderer. Just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 29 October, 2010 Share Posted 29 October, 2010 It is indeed a very tricky issue. Some crimes are so awful that you feel there can be little complaining about carrying out an execution but I can't imagine anything much worse than being condemned when innocent. Some crimes though there is no doubt at all. It's when this is the case, and it's the most severe type of murder then the death penalty should be used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 29 October, 2010 Share Posted 29 October, 2010 Some crimes though there is no doubt at all. It's when this is the case, and it's the most severe type of murder then the death penalty should be used. agree...the shipmans, hindleys of the world Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Saint Posted 30 October, 2010 Share Posted 30 October, 2010 So picking up the "life means life" thread... If this were the case, noone would confess, noone would plead guilty, noone would come quietly, no one would have any incentive to behave in prison. Would we actually be better off? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 30 October, 2010 Share Posted 30 October, 2010 its worth bearing in mind the case that lead to us abolishing the death penalty. These things cant be undone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now