pap Posted 6 January, 2012 Share Posted 6 January, 2012 I really wish we could confirm that media news saturation is the only reason this sort of thing seems to be occuring more often. I intuitively do not feel as safe as I did 15-20 years ago, I must say. Yeah, that's something you should probably address. I can understand if you've been a victim of violent crime, but there's little point to paranoia by proxy. As for your comments about the police bringing it on themselves, I find them to be very unfair. They do a f**king awful job, with sh*tty political direction from above. Well, I'm possibly guilty of not having a wider perspective. Pretty much every experience I've had as a victim of crime has been p*ss-poor. Memories of plod barreling into the miners in the 1980s, the Hillsborough cover up, getting photographed for going on demos, plus all the bad press from the Met have added up. But you're right. I'm pretty sure that their hands are tied on a lot of the crap they have to do, so I'm willing to concede that I'm possibly projecting my own experiences as a wider whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 6 January, 2012 Share Posted 6 January, 2012 In you look at the murder rates in each of the states in the USofA, 19 of the highest ranked 20 states have the death penalty, 8 of the lowest 9 do not. So much for deterrence. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRord http://www.ncadp.org/index.cfm?content=45 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorpe-le-Saint Posted 6 January, 2012 Share Posted 6 January, 2012 The death penalty is not an effective detterent though Alpine; never has been, never will be - if people want to do this sort of sick thing they will do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 6 January, 2012 Share Posted 6 January, 2012 I'm never seen capital punishment as a deterrent, simply retribution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 6 January, 2012 Share Posted 6 January, 2012 I'm never seen capital punishment as a deterrent, simply retribution. Well I've got more sympathy for that argument, I doubt that anyone guilty of pre-meditated murder could successfully argue that they "deserved" to live. Two problems though: 1. Do you trust it to be used fairly? In the US you're much more likely to be executed if you are poor and a minority, and you get cases that point towards innocence but politically motivated Governers want execution so they can look tough. 2. Execution is final. If you're actually innocent there is no hope of reprieve which means another innocent life has been lost and the real murderer goesunpunished. Too many pitfalls for me, I'd prefer life to mean life in gaol rather than life tariff. Before any mouth frothers comment - the above comments in no way mean i condone child murder or giving criminals holidays, cash or a hug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micky Posted 6 January, 2012 Share Posted 6 January, 2012 I don't actually want to get into any protracted debate on this, but fwiw - my views, and some are quite radical. Many have posted that the death penalty is not an effective detterent. I don't care, I don't even think it's relevant, it's like saying any prison custodial sentence is not a deterent. Is an ASBO or Tag a deterrent - no, probably not. So why (in part) do I agree with Alpine? Simply becuase I want a form of punishment that fits the crime and I want justice (you can call it revenge too if you like - I wouldn't argue against it). I know that if any heinous crime were committed against any of my children or family, I would want the very, very worst for the perpertrator(s). A man in a Manchester street is enjoying a night out, a complete stranger walks up to him and shoots him in the head for no apparent reason. If the stranger is found guilty (without doubt) then he should be taken back to the street and shot in the head. I care not if he is a drug addict, if he comes from a poor background or whatever - the basis of right from wrong is known to all. So in short, I agree with Alpine - there is a place for the death penalty. I agree with Delldays & Turkish - use when there is no doubt (selective). I agree with Duckhunter - current sentencing policy for serious crimes are pathetic. And just to add to the controversy, once fair trial has been conducted, I would allow the victims to decide the ultimate fate of the perpertrator. If they want to forgive and grant clemency - fair play, if not then sobeit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 6 January, 2012 Share Posted 6 January, 2012 Well I've got more sympathy for that argument, I doubt that anyone guilty of pre-meditated murder could successfully argue that they "deserved" to live. Two problems though: 1. Do you trust it to be used fairly? In the US you're much more likely to be executed if you are poor and a minority, and you get cases that point towards innocence but politically motivated Governers want execution so they can look tough. 2. Execution is final. If you're actually innocent there is no hope of reprieve which means another innocent life has been lost and the real murderer goesunpunished. Too many pitfalls for me, I'd prefer life to mean life in gaol rather than life tariff. Before any mouth frothers comment - the above comments in no way mean i condone child murder or giving criminals holidays, cash or a hug. I would have it solely for child killers when the evidence is stone cold and the full appeal process is complete. No sympathy, no mercy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 6 January, 2012 Share Posted 6 January, 2012 (edited) I would have it solely for child killers when the evidence is stone cold and the full appeal process is complete. No sympathy, no mercy. Some would probably add that it should be allowed when sexual violence/rape has been used during the murder as well. However, I remember that Tom and Tackle murder where the bloke admitted it and spent 27 odd years in nick only to be released when he later appealed. I just can't agree with the death penalty on two points. Firstly, we convict to a standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" not 100% definite (and when people say but there are some that are definitely definite, then the problem is where on that sliding scale does the definite fall away) and of course there's no way back from the death penalty!!! Secondly I really just don't believe in the State taking an individual's life (eye for eye leaving you blind, those who seek vengeance should dig two graves etc etc etc). But I agree with Duckhunter in that the life sentence should mean just that and that the tariff appears to be too lenient nowadays. Edited 6 January, 2012 by um pahars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acersaint Posted 6 January, 2012 Share Posted 6 January, 2012 Wasnt going to label you a left wing softie. Captain of the Starship Enterprise, maybe. Did you rip off one of Patrick Stewart's monologues ? So does being articulate make me weird. I can form my own thoughts. But I take being compared to my namesake Patrick Stewart a compliment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 6 January, 2012 Share Posted 6 January, 2012 Firstly, we convict to a standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" not 100% definite (and when people say but there are some that are definitely definite, then the problem is where on that sliding scale does the definite fall away) and of course there's no way back from the death penalty!!! They've actually changed it from "beyond reasonable doubt" to "satisfied so that you are sure". Did jury service last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamilton Saint Posted 6 January, 2012 Share Posted 6 January, 2012 A destitute man steals a loaf of bread to feed a starving family. What does justice require? a) chop off his hand to show that stealing is a serious offense and to deter others from doing the same b) give him three months in jail so that the baker feels better about his loss c) throw him in jail for six months so that society is satisfied that the system is tough on crime c) provide welfare so that the man and his family do not starve and he doesn't need to resort to stealing to survive A man kills someone, apparently, in cold blood. What does justice require: a) the state should execute the killer to show that killing is wrong, to stop him from killing again, and to deter others from killing b) the state should put him in jail for life because killing is a heinous crime that should not be tolerated, and to deter others c) the state should put him in jail for life because killing is a heinous crime that should not be tolerated - but with the possibility of parole after a long period, if the man shows that he has been rehabilitated d) the state should put him in jail for a limited period (e.g., 10 years) and provide the chance for parole after a set period A president and his secretary of state initiate a secret, illegal, fourteen-month campaign of carpet bombing of two defenseless countries. 2,756,941 tons of ordnance are dropped in 230,516 sorties on 113,716 sites. Over 10 percent of this bombing was indiscriminate, with 3,580 of the sites listed as having “unknown” targets and another 8,238 sites having no target listed at all. Justice requires that: a) the president and his secretary of state be charged with war crimes b) the president and his secretary of state be impeached for pursuing an immoral and illegal act of war without the permission of congress c) the president be re-elected and the secretary of state be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize A Prime Minister takes his country to war to support an ally, despite the fact the majority of his people oppose the action. Justice requires that: a) he be charged with war crimes b) he be deposed as leader immediately by his own party c) he be praised for strengthening ties with his ally d) he be made a "peace envoy" and sent to solve the problems in the Middle East Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 6 January, 2012 Share Posted 6 January, 2012 I would bring back the death penalty for the worst murders where there was no doubt at all in the person's guilt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 6 January, 2012 Share Posted 6 January, 2012 (edited) The death penalty isnt the ultimate sanction or punishment. Solitary confinement is harsher. Edited 6 January, 2012 by shurlock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 6 January, 2012 Share Posted 6 January, 2012 They've actually changed it from "beyond reasonable doubt" to "satisfied so that you are sure". Did jury service last year. Isnt that pretty much the same thing just worded differently? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 6 January, 2012 Share Posted 6 January, 2012 (edited) We did exactly the same thread in 2009, and on that one I posted the following link : http://truenorth-armagh.blogspot.com/2009/09/better-that-one-hundred-guilty-men-go.html When does 'absolute proof' stop being 'absolute' ? Edit : also try Googling 'Lesley Molseed' and read the case of Stephan Kisko, who would have been executed if we had retained the death penalty. ( One of a multitude of examples that could be used ). Edited 6 January, 2012 by badgerx16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 6 January, 2012 Share Posted 6 January, 2012 Gandalf said it all: '' many that deserve death, live, many that are dead desewrve life, can you give it to them?'' OK so maybe a little trivial on what is a serious issue. Whenever we hear these horror stories the natural reaction of most normal folk is emotive; shock disgust and a belief that JUSTICE is best served by a death penalty. Thankfully we have elected governments (from all sides of the poloitical divide) that assess the evidence more rationally and adhere to the premise that the UK is a mature and civilized society - we know longer have state sponsored retributive murder, as a state we dont lower ourselves to the level of these hideous criminals... but life should mean life for the worst crimes. Alps also mentioned that we are 'now seeing so much of this... we need a deterent' - well to be honest, I dont have any stats but the very worst crmes have been happening for donkeys years, but now we here about everyone of them on the 24 hour media - as teh stats for the US show it does not work as a deterent.... and lets be honest for a moment. The crime most would argue 'deserve' teh death penalty are those of child rape and murder, rape and murder etc... yet the reality is, these committing these crimes tend to be ill, seriously sick, twisted and warped... they dont see what they do as a crime, let alone be deterred by what might happen if they are court. As a father of a 7 year old girl, I know that should anyone harm her i any way I would respond with a violence that is not in my nature. I know I would want to kill anyone who harmed my wife or child. That is a normal protective reaction to such threats to loved ones - the thing is you cant make up laws based on emotional responses of individuals - you have to make up laws based on rational thinking about what is best for society. Its easy to suggest that ridding society of such rapists and murderers would be beneficial, but their is evidence to suggest that having such state sponsored death penalties, actually sends out the wrong message about how we should value life. I am PROUD of the governments we have had, be they Labour or Conservative for the way they have dealt with thsi issue whenever it comes up - maturely and rationally and despite the ****e we have to put up with in this country, these makes me proud to be British and not Texan or Georgian (US).... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 6 January, 2012 Share Posted 6 January, 2012 by 18 I had properly lived.. by 21 I had been around the world and took part in a war by 25 had notched up my 2nd war and had experiences that I will never forget at 18, I could not have cared less about paddy ashdown, myra hindley and the local health authority Oh God here's Mr Culture again "Ive been in two wars so I'm well cultured, I know all about blowing up the darkies" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 6 January, 2012 Share Posted 6 January, 2012 A destitute man steals a loaf of bread to feed a starving family. What does justice require? a) chop off his hand to show that stealing is a serious offense and to deter others from doing the same b) give him three months in jail so that the baker feels better about his loss c) throw him in jail for six months so that society is satisfied that the system is tough on crime c) provide welfare so that the man and his family do not starve and he doesn't need to resort to stealing to survive A man kills someone, apparently, in cold blood. What does justice require: a) the state should execute the killer to show that killing is wrong, to stop him from killing again, and to deter others from killing b) the state should put him in jail for life because killing is a heinous crime that should not be tolerated, and to deter others c) the state should put him in jail for life because killing is a heinous crime that should not be tolerated - but with the possibility of parole after a long period, if the man shows that he has been rehabilitated d) the state should put him in jail for a limited period (e.g., 10 years) and provide the chance for parole after a set period A president and his secretary of state initiate a secret, illegal, fourteen-month campaign of carpet bombing of two defenseless countries. 2,756,941 tons of ordnance are dropped in 230,516 sorties on 113,716 sites. Over 10 percent of this bombing was indiscriminate, with 3,580 of the sites listed as having “unknown” targets and another 8,238 sites having no target listed at all. Justice requires that: a) the president and his secretary of state be charged with war crimes b) the president and his secretary of state be impeached for pursuing an immoral and illegal act of war without the permission of congress c) the president be re-elected and the secretary of state be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize A Prime Minister takes his country to war to support an ally, despite the fact the majority of his people oppose the action. Justice requires that: a) he be charged with war crimes b) he be deposed as leader immediately by his own party c) he be praised for strengthening ties with his ally d) he be made a "peace envoy" and sent to solve the problems in the Middle East Not sure what you are getting at but is the third one about Laos and Cambodia? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 6 January, 2012 Share Posted 6 January, 2012 (edited) Gandalf said it all: '' many that deserve death, live, many that are dead desewrve life, can you give it to them?'' OK so maybe a little trivial on what is a serious issue. Whenever we hear these horror stories the natural reaction of most normal folk is emotive; shock disgust and a belief that JUSTICE is best served by a death penalty. Thankfully we have elected governments (from all sides of the poloitical divide) that assess the evidence more rationally and adhere to the premise that the UK is a mature and civilized society - we know longer have state sponsored retributive murder, as a state we dont lower ourselves to the level of these hideous criminals... but life should mean life for the worst crimes. Alps also mentioned that we are 'now seeing so much of this... we need a deterent' - well to be honest, I dont have any stats but the very worst crmes have been happening for donkeys years, but now we here about everyone of them on the 24 hour media - as teh stats for the US show it does not work as a deterent.... and lets be honest for a moment. The crime most would argue 'deserve' teh death penalty are those of child rape and murder, rape and murder etc... yet the reality is, these committing these crimes tend to be ill, seriously sick, twisted and warped... they dont see what they do as a crime, let alone be deterred by what might happen if they are court. As a father of a 7 year old girl, I know that should anyone harm her i any way I would respond with a violence that is not in my nature. I know I would want to kill anyone who harmed my wife or child. That is a normal protective reaction to such threats to loved ones - the thing is you cant make up laws based on emotional responses of individuals - you have to make up laws based on rational thinking about what is best for society. Its easy to suggest that ridding society of such rapists and murderers would be beneficial, but their is evidence to suggest that having such state sponsored death penalties, actually sends out the wrong message about how we should value life. I am PROUD of the governments we have had, be they Labour or Conservative for the way they have dealt with thsi issue whenever it comes up - maturely and rationally and despite the ****e we have to put up with in this country, these makes me proud to be British and not Texan or Georgian (US).... Well said Frank. I too am utterly opposed to the death penalty under any circumstances, the arguments in favour (such as they are) seem based more on raw emotion rather than any civilized value I recognise - or could condone. The state has no right to take the lives of its own citizens except when it's absolutely necessary to do so in order to protect the innocent. I would argue that even the most depraved of criminals, such as Robert Black the utterly vile child rapist/murderer (to take an extreme example) can be adequately dealt with via a true 'whole life' sentence. Would I regret Black's death had he been killed trying to escape justice ? Not in the slightest. Would hanging him now make this a more just, safer society ? I really don't think so. The awful truth is that nothing you can do to the likes of Robert Black and his ilk can bring back the innocent and make things 'right' again. That's the real tragedy of murder isn't it ? Whatever the justice system subsequently does is just too little, and far too late. Edited 6 January, 2012 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 6 January, 2012 Share Posted 6 January, 2012 We did exactly the same thread in 2009, and on that one I posted the following link : http://truenorth-armagh.blogspot.com/2009/09/better-that-one-hundred-guilty-men-go.html When does 'absolute proof' stop being 'absolute' ? Edit : also try Googling 'Lesley Molseed' and read the case of Stephan Kisko, who would have been executed if we had retained the death penalty. ( One of a multitude of examples that could be used ). You are missing the point, that case was miles away from there being no doubt at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocknrollman no2 Posted 6 January, 2012 Share Posted 6 January, 2012 Well said Frank. I too am utterly opposed to the death penalty under any circumstances, the arguments in favour (such as they are) seem based more on raw emotion rather than any civilized value I recognise - or could condone. The state has no right to take the lives of its own citizens except when it's absolutely necessary to do so in order to protect the innocent. I would argue that even the most deprived of criminals, such as Robert Black the utterly vile child rapist/murderer to make a extreme example, can be adequately dealt with via a true 'whole life' sentence. Would I regret Black's death had he been killed trying to escape justice ? Not in the slightest. Would hanging him now make this a more just, safer society ? I really don't think so. The awful truth is that nothing you can do to the likes of Robert Black and his ilk can bring back the innocent and make things 'right' again. That's the real tragedy of murder isn't it - whatever the justice system subsequently does is just too little, and far too late. This is a very well thought out post and i agree totally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 6 January, 2012 Share Posted 6 January, 2012 (edited) You are missing the point, that case was miles away from there being no doubt at all. Which of the 2 examples ? In the first case an innocentman was executed. In both cases a trial jury found the defendant guilty, so there was apparently no doubt, at least 'beyond any reasonable...', at that point. Who draws the line ? Who verifies that sufficient evidence has been supplied to ensure that there is 'no doubt at all' ? Define 'no doubt at all'. There are a multitude of cases where people have been found guilty, and only after serving many years inside, ( those lucky enough not to have been hanged that is ), has a Miscarriage of Justice been shown to have occurred: http://www.innocent.org.uk/cases/ Edited 7 January, 2012 by badgerx16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 6 January, 2012 Author Share Posted 6 January, 2012 This is a very well thought out post and i agree totally. Well I dont. Well said Frank. I too am utterly opposed to the death penalty under any circumstances, the arguments in favour (such as they are) seem based more on raw emotion rather than any civilized value I recognise - or could condone. The state has no right to take the lives of its own citizens except when it's absolutely necessary to do so in order to protect the innocent. I would argue that even the most depraved of criminals, such as Robert Black the utterly vile child rapist/murderer (to take an extreme example) can be adequately dealt with via a true 'whole life' sentence. Would I regret Black's death had he been killed trying to escape justice ? Not in the slightest. Would hanging him now make this a more just, safer society ? I really don't think so. The awful truth is that nothing you can do to the likes of Robert Black and his ilk can bring back the innocent and make things 'right' again. That's the real tragedy of murder isn't it ? Whatever the justice system subsequently does is just too little, and far too late. The bold part sounds like passing the buck. Besides, why should the taxpayer pay for the horrifically expensive incarceration costs for individuals totally without value and contribution to society ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 6 January, 2012 Share Posted 6 January, 2012 Which of the 2 examples ? In the first case an innocent man was executed. In both cases a trial jury found the defendant guilty, so there was apparently no doubt, at least 'beyond any reasonable...', at that point. Who draws the line ? Who verifies that sufficient evidence has been supplied to ensure that there is 'no doubt at all' ? Define 'no doubt at all'. There are a multitude of cases where people have been found guilty, and only after serving many years inside, ( those lucky enough not to have been hanged that is ), has a Miscarriage of Justice been shown to have occurred: http://www.innocent.org.uk/cases/ Where is the doubt in the Norway massacre case then? There have been plenty of cases where it is not just "beyond reasonable doubt", if it's caught on CCTV or there are multiple witnesses or overwhelming evidence. For the really sick crimes I would sentence them to life with an option of death. Whilst they are serving their sentence a committee of judges will revue the evidence and if there is no doubt they get executed at a random date with no warning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocknrollman no2 Posted 6 January, 2012 Share Posted 6 January, 2012 How can the state say its wrong to kill,yet then say ,ok we will kill you for killing someone else? The death penalty has never stopped anyone from killing and it never will. We are supposed to be cilivised and above "An eye for an eye". If we go against this,then we might as well follow the nasty road to sharia law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamster Posted 6 January, 2012 Share Posted 6 January, 2012 I wanted to kill someone once, it is a horrible feeling. I am glad that I let him live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 7 January, 2012 Share Posted 7 January, 2012 I wanted to kill someone once, it is a horrible feeling. I am glad that I let him live. And I thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micky Posted 7 January, 2012 Share Posted 7 January, 2012 I wanted to kill someone once, it is a horrible feeling. I am glad that I let him live. Why did you want to kill him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 7 January, 2012 Share Posted 7 January, 2012 ....... why should the taxpayer pay for the horrifically expensive incarceration costs for individuals totally without value and contribution to society ? We pay for what is indeed a 'horrifically expensive' prison system because by depriving a incarcerated criminal of his/her ability to earn a living in the normal manner, it then becomes incumbent upon the state to maintain (and guard) them. Of course prisoners can (and sometimes do) perform profitable work while serving their sentences, but this itself can prove to be problematic for a host of reasons I'm sure we can all readily appreciate. But at its heart this is more a moral question than a strictly practical one. All right thinking people are appalled by horrible crimes such as rape or murder (especially when the victims are innocent children) and my blood boils just like yours when this happens, but I refuse to submit to that very natural human emotion by becoming a supporter of (judicial) killing myself. If killing is wrong - then it's wrong isn't it? I'm well aware that this view is a minority one, but I would ask the majority to please accept that those who oppose capital punishment do so because of a deeply held moral conviction, rather than some otherwise inexplicable wish to see murderers 'get away with' their repulsive crimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 7 January, 2012 Share Posted 7 January, 2012 How about if she burnt the dinner, you called her a dozy cow, she whacked you, you whacked her, she pulled out a knife, you tried to grab it, she slashed at you, you punched her hard in the face, she fell back and smashed her head on the granite worktop. Death penalty for you? Surely that would be manslaughter, and not murder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 7 January, 2012 Author Share Posted 7 January, 2012 We pay for what is indeed a 'horrifically expensive' prison system because by depriving a incarcerated criminal of his/her ability to earn a living in the normal manner, it then becomes incumbent upon the state to maintain (and guard) them. Of course prisoners can (and sometimes do) perform profitable work while serving their sentences, but this itself can prove to be problematic for a host of reasons I'm sure we can all readily appreciate. But at its heart this is more a moral question than a strictly practical one. All right thinking people are appalled by horrible crimes such as rape or murder (especially when the victims are innocent children) and my blood boils just like yours when this happens, but I refuse to submit to that very natural human emotion by becoming a supporter of (judicial) killing myself. If killing is wrong - then it's wrong isn't it? I'm well aware that this view is a minority one, but I would ask the majority to please accept that those who oppose capital punishment do so because of a deeply held moral conviction, rather than some otherwise inexplicable wish to see murderers 'get away with' their repulsive crimes. So those of us who support capital punishment are without morals, are we ? Oh, how I wish us idiots were all enlightened like you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 7 January, 2012 Share Posted 7 January, 2012 So those of us who support capital punishment are without morals, are we ? Oh, how I wish us idiots were all enlightened like you I don't think I was so unforgivably arrogant as to claim any such thing, indeed I would no more say that one persons morals are 'better' than another's than I would claim one mans religion is provably 'better' than somebody else's. There were good reasons why capitol punishment was abolished in this country and many of them have already been aired in this thread. You started this thread (I presume) because you wanted to debate the matter, if so it was naive to believe that everyone would agree with you. Ultimately where you stand on this issue surely boils down to a matter of personal opinion, or to put it more succinctly, a matter of individual conscience. My conscience, for what it's worth, tells me that judicial killing is wrong. Others of course hold a different view - 'twas ever thus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 7 January, 2012 Author Share Posted 7 January, 2012 I don't think I was so unforgivably arrogant as to claim any such thing, indeed I would no more say that one persons morals are 'better' than another's than I would claim one mans religion is provably 'better' than somebody else's. There were good reasons why capitol punishment was abolished in this country and many of them have already been aired in this thread. You started this thread (I presume) because you wanted to debate the matter, if so it was naive to believe that everyone would agree with you. Ultimately where you stand on this issue surely boils down to a matter of personal opinion, or to put it more succinctly, a matter of individual conscience. My conscience, for what it's worth, tells me that judicial killing is wrong. Others of course hold a different view - 'twas ever thus. Glad we cleared that up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFrost Posted 7 January, 2012 Share Posted 7 January, 2012 What has capital punishment ever solved? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 7 January, 2012 Share Posted 7 January, 2012 What has capital punishment ever solved? It saves the financial cost of keeping scum like Hindly and Brady alive. For that reason i'm in favour of hanging people like them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 7 January, 2012 Share Posted 7 January, 2012 but I refuse to submit to that very natural human emotion by becoming a supporter of (judicial) killing myself. If killing is wrong - then it's wrong isn't it? Locking people in small rooms is wrong but it's OK when the government do it. It's the same principle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 7 January, 2012 Share Posted 7 January, 2012 Locking people in small rooms is wrong but it's OK when the government do it. It's the same principle. I disagree. It is absolutely necessary (and hence justifiable) for the state to incarcerate dangerous criminals in order to deter others, punish them, and (mostly importantly) to protect society from their violence - the obvious 'public safety' imperative of that overriding the offenders right to liberty. This principle has been an intrinsic part of the English common law tradition since time immemorial. Once imprisoned and serving a long or 'whole life' sentence however, I see no imperative need for the state to then take the offenders life as well, we might call this guiding principle 'the minimum use of force'. Yes there certainly is a long historical precedent for the use of capitol punishment, but lots of stuff went on in the past that I would hope no right thinking person would now consider to be acceptable. As ever this is my individual opinion and I'm well aware that others will vehemently disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 7 January, 2012 Share Posted 7 January, 2012 Capital punishment isn't necessarily a cheap option. If the UK were to bring it back you can guarantee that it would be accompanied by a number of appeal stages over several years to ensure that there are no miscarriages of justice. All cases would cost shedloads in lawyers fees and court fees - the vast majority of which would probably be picked up by the taxpayer. If brought back I'd imagine they'd also build a purpose built facility or two for both the death row inmates and the execution facility which would also cost a few bob. Even so, I think any opinion on the death penalty should be based upon weighing the relative morals involved, not which method is cheaper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 7 January, 2012 Share Posted 7 January, 2012 Capital punishment isn't necessarily a cheap option. If the UK were to bring it back you can guarantee that it would be accompanied by a number of appeal stages over several years to ensure that there are no miscarriages of justice. All cases would cost shedloads in lawyers fees and court fees - the vast majority of which would probably be picked up by the taxpayer. If brought back I'd imagine they'd also build a purpose built facility or two for both the death row inmates and the execution facility which would also cost a few bob. Even so, I think any opinion on the death penalty should be based upon weighing the relative morals involved, not which method is cheaper. This is actually one of the key reasons why some states in the US are moving towards abolition: the cost of administering a system which allows appeals against death sentence is more prohibitive than that of a life-sentence regimen - and this in a country where 'life means life'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 7 January, 2012 Share Posted 7 January, 2012 You get into very dangerous ground when you bring 'cost' into the equation and 'taxpayers' expense - surely no one is seriously say that a life or death judgement should be based on it....? I do believe that those who have the opinion that its is something we should bring back for the most hideous of crimes, must be looking for some form of vengence - I would be able to to understand that perfectly if we were talking about personal experience - as I said before its a very natural human reaction to want to kill those that have harmed those you love. Cant remember what the is that psychologists and psychiatrist would use.. transferenc emaybe? Maybe for some this very personal emotion is kicked in when we see this sort of shocking news? Totally understandable, but is it a good time to make a judgement on something as important as this when reacting emotionally to such hideous crime? I think Chapel End Charlie is right though when he says that if we think killing or murder is wrong.. then surely it is wrong, even if considered as punishment? Back in the middle ages, you could be hanged for stealling a deer from someones estate to feed you family and kids - as times moved on, we as a society accepted that was wrong and learned from it. I like to think that we abolished capital punishment for the same reasons that our successive Governments also believed that if we want to stand above those that commit these hideous crimes, be morally supierior, we cant as a state make life or death decisions in these cases - especially when we know there must be something fundementally wrong with these people psychologically for them to even contemplate such acts. These are sick ill individuals - its just theat their 'illness' makes them dangerous and intollerable to society so they need locking up to safeguard society - if we start utilising capital punishmnet to remove the 'ill' is it really that far removed from the murder of the mentally and physically handicapped by the Nazis in the 40s? I know that will appear a controversial statement to many, but if we accept the principle that no rational, normal healthy and mentally balanced individual woyul committ the sort of crimes we detest, we are in effect saying they are not normal, healthly people - they do have something so very wrong with their psychological profile that they even contemplate such acts... should the punishment be death for being abnormal? A while back I did at times lean more to the 'bring it back for child murder and rape' idea - until I discussed it with someone who posed a very interesting question - 'what if it was your son or daughter? not who was the victim, but who was the accused - if either you believed they were innocent, or it became clear that they had some very serious psychological issues' - would you be able to stand by and watch whilst the crowds bayed for the death penalty, could you really say you agreed? Its why for me, whilst I appreciate everyone has their own opinion, if ever it came up for a debate in the House again, i would strongly urge thsoe making teh decsion to look at teh bigger picture, that we are a mature society that does not need vengence to satisfy our very real need and desire for justice - the two are NOT the same in a civilised society, no matter how much personal satisfaction we might get from it if personally involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 8 January, 2012 Share Posted 8 January, 2012 People have been doing terrible things to other people for thousands of years. It makes no difference if there is a death penalty or not. As a society we have moved on. If it is not right to take a life it is not right for society to take a life. However, life imprisonment should mean life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 8 January, 2012 Share Posted 8 January, 2012 Not lethal injection. Why should it be painless ? Electric chair or gas chamber for me. Especially like the latter, the panicky holding of breath as you hear the fizzing of the acid under the chair... Am I the only one who finds this post disturbing? And as for why should we pay for keeping people in custody perhaps we should save ourselves a bundle and kill everyone who is remanded? Perhaps build some gas ovens? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 8 January, 2012 Share Posted 8 January, 2012 Am I the only one who finds this post disturbing? And as for why should we pay for keeping people in custody perhaps we should save ourselves a bundle and kill everyone who is remanded? Perhaps build some gas ovens? No, you're not the only one. It's pretty sick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 8 January, 2012 Author Share Posted 8 January, 2012 Am I the only one who finds this post disturbing? And as for why should we pay for keeping people in custody perhaps we should save ourselves a bundle and kill everyone who is remanded? Perhaps build some gas ovens? What a pathetic attempt at twisting the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 8 January, 2012 Share Posted 8 January, 2012 No, you're not the only one. It's pretty sick. That the thing - once you start down this road... where does it stop? What 'category' of murder justifies it... is one murder more hideous than another? or put it another way is one victims life worth more than another simply due to the way they were killed? Because that is waht the death penalty is saying, if it is reserved for 'certain' crimes... and Alps, mate think you should take back that post, its pretty sick and surely has no place in a serious debate? You have a strong opinion for sure, whic you arer entitled to, and its probably one thing saying it down the pub, but read it back as tell me you really feel like that... I dont believe you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 8 January, 2012 Author Share Posted 8 January, 2012 That the thing - once you start down this road... where does it stop? What 'category' of murder justifies it... is one murder more hideous than another? or put it another way is one victims life worth more than another simply due to the way they were killed? Because that is waht the death penalty is saying' date=' if it is reserved for 'certain' crimes... [b']and Alps, mate think you should take back that post, its pretty sick and surely has no place in a serious debate? You have a strong opinion for sure, whic you arer entitled to, and its probably one thing saying it down the pub, but read it back as tell me you really feel like that... I dont believe you do[/b]. Whats wrong with a murderer feeling the same terror, panic and helplessness in their last moments as their victims felt ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 8 January, 2012 Share Posted 8 January, 2012 Whats wrong with a murderer feeling the same terror, panic and helplessness in their last moments as their victims felt ? You sound like another slightly more infamous Austrian, who also revelled in how to maximise distress during judicial murder. Finding ghoulish ways to kill people really is the way to self-disqualify your own views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 8 January, 2012 Author Share Posted 8 January, 2012 You sound like another slightly more infamous Austrian, who also revelled in how to maximise distress during judicial murder. Finding ghoulish ways to kill people really is the way to self-disqualify your own views. What a load of hysterical nonsense. And I am not Austrian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 8 January, 2012 Share Posted 8 January, 2012 What a load of hysterical nonsense. And I am not Austrian. So you think it's perfectly normal to dream up inventive ways to kill people? If so, you really have taken something of a break from reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 8 January, 2012 Author Share Posted 8 January, 2012 So you think it's perfectly normal to dream up inventive ways to kill people? If so, you really have taken something of a break from reality. What have I dreamt up, exactly ? I was referring to tried and tested methods. 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