Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: SJKOO01 on 05 December 2010, 17:30:13
-
I'm sure this topic has already been spoken about some time ago, long before I joined.
However, after seeing this post http://www.omegaowners.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1291545326 I wondering what others thought of this ?.
Personally, I feel that it should be reinstated. There are crimes out there whereby the person committing the crime should be aware that, should they be caught, their life is now on a timer and no prison sentence is an option.
I posted this in the interest of a serious discussion on what others think. And if others think that the time has come to re-instate it ?.
Your thoughts anyone ?.
-
Yes, when there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever in both legal and actual terms, especially when the victim is a police officer or a child.
-
Yes, when there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever in both legal and actual terms, especially when the victim is a police officer or a child.
i have to agree with lizzie and voted yes
-
Yes, when there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever in both legal and actual terms, especially when the victim is a police officer or a child.
That's an interesting response Lizzie.
The child side I can understand, but why if the victim is a police officer?. Do you think that should it be a member of the public whom is the victim, then the murder should have life behind bars in place of?.
-
Yes, when there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever in both legal and actual terms, especially when the victim is a police officer or a child.
Totally disagree with that. Murder is murder regardless of a person`s status/age etc. Consider this.......serving police officer murdered.......death penalty. Homeless vagabond/tramp or whatever murdered........why not the death penalty, at the end of the day it`s a human life
-
in my opinion, if you murder someone you should be given the death penalty, not live the rest of your life in prison. Why should they get to live when theyve taken someone elses life???
-
in my opinion, if you murder someone you should be given the death penalty, not live the rest of your life in prison. Why should they get to live when theyve taken someone elses life???
Well...ten years of it anyway. :(
-
Yes, when there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever in both legal and actual terms, especially when the victim is a police officer or a child.
That's an interesting response Lizzie.
The child side I can understand, but why if the victim is a police officer?. Do you think that should it be a member of the public whom is the victim, then the murder should have life behind bars in place of?.
Because the police officer is doing their duty for the public good, and usually when they are murdered it is a deliberate, cold bloodied, assination. The police put themselves at risk for us constantly and need to be protected accordingly.
However Goose (and Rob), I can understand the argument for stretching the death penalty for ALL murders, but then you greatly increase the risk of a miscarriage of justice by way of the odds against that happening being greatly reduced. And that is a major problem of bringing back the death penalty. As a society we must be absolutely certain that the accussed is guilty, without a shred of doubt, as I said either from a legal or practical point of view ;)
EDIT: Of course a convicted terrorist should also receive the death penalty.
-
I am worried about miscarriages of justice
-
As I have stated I am in favour of the death penalty "when there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever in both legal and actual terms"
This is what must be avoided at all costs; the Derek Bentley case which is still debated today and supports the view against the death penalty:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/28/newsid_3393000/3393807.stm
You decide. Should he have been hanged? :-/ :-/
-
depends on the crime..
not that easy subject to decide.. lawyers and humanity spend long on time on it.. in case of any mistake, its irreversible.. imo must be permitted only for serial killers..or more than one victim case..
dont forget no one is borned to be a killer..
ps: I'm planning to kill someone, so just in case ;D ;D
-
It depends on the reason for its re-introduction.
Deterrent or Retribution?
Should it be for retribution and the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt then capital punishment serves a purpose – it demonstrates the disapproval of the crime by the criminal justice system and society as a whole by providing closure for the family and friends of the victim and saves the expense of keeping the convicted person incarnated for a lifetime.
If one were to suggest it as a deterrent, hoping that the ultimate punishment will persuade any person so disposed to commit a capital offence to do otherwise, then this assertion also has merit.
In reality the death penalty does not work as a deterrent and only serves, in my view, to demonstrate society’s disapproval of the crime in question.
In the course of my duty I have seen much death, I have seen people murdered, I have investigated murder and I have come very close to being murdered on more than a few occasions.
Despite this I have no wish for capital punishment to be reinstated.
When people commit crime they do so for a number of reasons under a variety of circumstances. In the main, when violent crime is committed, many people will do so on the spur of the moment – without thinking of the consequences - so the deterrent factor becomes less of an imperative.
Those who choose to commit premeditated crime – indicating that they have thought about and considered their actions - will, in the main, continue to do so as they feel that the crime provides the best solution to their problem or desires.
This vexed question regarding capital punishment will always be asked by some when they attempt to understand the extreme nature of certain crimes. It is a justifiable question to pose but in my experience the penalty of death – if its not handed down for reasons of retribution- is best left in history.
In its place, if a custodial sentence of life imprisonment is judged then life should mean whole life.
We should also bear in mind that many miscarriages of justice have occurred in capital cases, so even when trying to ensure that a particular defendant has been judged guilty of the offence, beyond a reasonable doubt, other facts may conspire to prove otherwise at a later time.
-
I voted "Life in prison should mean Life". Z's last para ( as well as those preceeding ) says it all.
However we might couch it, a sentence, of whatever scope and magnitude, is both deterrent and retribution. I do believe that the rehabilitation aspect was never in the minds of those in power when our current justice (such as it is) system was introduced.
One caveat I do have, however, is that prisons and the system should be reformed so that lesser crimes are treated with a restorative sentence. Repeat crimes are treated more harshly (everyone makes errors of judgement, but repeated "errors" indicate a more serious problem). Seven years should mean seven years, and so on. Finally prisons themselves need to be "de- holiday camped". Okay, we needn't go back to the Middle Ages, but life in prisons should be at "subsistence level".
-
I feel quite strongly about this for obvious reasons and I invite you to read the following and then make a decision.
An execution is not simply death. It is just as different from the privation of life as a concentration camp is from prison. It adds to death a rule, a public premeditation known to the future victim, an organization which is itself a source of moral sufferings more terrible than death. Capital punishment is the most premeditated of murders, to which no criminal's deed, however calculated can be compared. For there to be an equivalency, the death penalty would have to punish a criminal who had warned his victim of the date at which he would inflict a horrible death on him and who, from that moment onward, had confined him at his mercy for months. Such a monster is not encountered in private life."
Albert Camus---"Reflections on the Guillotine, Resistance, Rebellion & Death" (1956).
Plea Against the Death Penalty
Look, examine, reflect. You hold capital punishment up as an example. Why? Because of what it teaches. And just what is it that you wish to teach by means of this example? That thou shalt not kill. And how do you teach that "thou shalt not kill"? By killing.
I have examined the death penalty under each of its 2 aspects: as a direct action, and as an indirect one. What does it come down to? Nothing but something horrible and useless, nothing but a way of shedding blood that is called a crime when an individual commits it, but is (sadly) called "justice" when society brings it about. Make no mistake, you lawmakers and judges, in the eyes of God as in those of conscience, what is a crime when individuals do it is no less an offense when society commits the deed.
Victor Hugo, Speech at the Constituent Assembly, September 15, 1848
Ask (if you could) Timothy Evans or James Hanratty, but there is somedoubt about James Hanratty or think about Derek Bentley. The case of Ruth Ellis, the last female hanged in the UK is another with the last Law Lord admitting that had her case been today she would probably have gotten no more than a 6 month sentence, the only reason she was not reprieved was because a passer by was shot in the hand.
I add finally that in my opinion the answer to your question in my opinion is a resounding NO.
Like it says above, is it any less murder when the State does the deed compared to when a criminal does it.
Prehaps the person who killed my husband should be considered a murderer and he should be hanged as well. I think NOT.
All my opinion.
Read here for more news on the Death Penalty today....
http://people.smu.edu/rhalperi/
Never ever bring it back, it is only REVENGE as said by the late Albert Pierrepoint, even though it was a little late for him to say that after carrying out over 600 executions.
Diane
-
I voted "depends on the crime".
I don't think child murderers should be executed.
I think they should be <wtf the word? removed from? > the protection of law. then hamstrung and dumped in a women's prison.
As to "miscarriages of justice" I think there is sufficient medical knowledge to find a way of using a "truth drug" to guarantee that a convict IS culpably guilty - or mentally ill/retarded.
Only after a further examination using such techniques should the death sentence be carried out.
As to a deterrent? I never heard of an executed murderer reoffending. seems like a 100% deterrent to me.
<no smiley>
-
on a more equal system, where all people have the chance of good parents, education, a good job and a salary, you will hardly need those punishemnt systems!
but no ! thats unacceptable ;D
ps : questions are not welcome, by the way.. it can be achieved .. no doubt..
-
I am worried about miscarriages of justice
Agreed, there have been a fair few here and in USA.
-
That will be a big YES from me! :P
-
on a more equal system, where all people have the chance of good parents, education, a good job and a salary, you will hardly need those punishemnt systems!
but no ! thats unacceptable ;D
ps : questions are not welcome, by the way.. it can be achieved .. no doubt..
good parents might be difficult, but certainly all the others are available to anybody in the UK.
Harold shipman seemed to have a good education, job and salary - no idea about his parents.
He certainly believed he deserved the death penalty.
-
on a more equal system, where all people have the chance of good parents, education, a good job and a salary, you will hardly need those punishemnt systems!
but no ! thats unacceptable ;D
ps : questions are not welcome, by the way.. it can be achieved .. no doubt..
good parents might be difficult, but certainly all the others are available to anybody in the UK.
Harold shipman seemed to have a good education, job and salary - no idea about his parents.
He certainly believed he deserved the death penalty.
the basis of education starts with the family, and some do believe human personality mostly formed within the first five years..
adding to that , babies can feel mothers pain, stress, sorrow even before birth..
-
don't get me wrong - I believe that in most cases (barring illness and injury) most crime can be blamed on the parents.
but there MUST come a time when a child accepts responsibility for it's own actions.
If the child can't or won't:
we shoot mad dogs don't we?
-
As I have stated I am in favour of the death penalty "when there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever in both legal and actual terms"
This is what must be avoided at all costs; the Derek Bentley case which is still debated today and supports the view against the death penalty:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/28/newsid_3393000/3393807.stm
You decide. Should he have been hanged? :-/ :-/
Quite so Lizzie.
Did the phrase "Let him have it" conveyed to Bentley mean that he should shoot the police officer or that he should surrender his weapon to him instead?
-
don't get me wrong - I believe that in most cases (barring illness and injury) most crime can be blamed on the parents.
but there MUST come a time when a child accepts responsibility for it's own actions.
If the child can't or won't:
we shoot mad dogs don't we?
I owned many cats and dogs whole my life.. trust me their behvaiour learning path, not so different than a human.. very rarely comes an example outside the general theories.. you only get whet you crop..
of course within the equation you must be able to control the environment.. but considering that also humans make up the environment factors we again turn back to the starting point imo..
-
As I have stated I am in favour of the death penalty "when there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever in both legal and actual terms"
This is what must be avoided at all costs; the Derek Bentley case which is still debated today and supports the view against the death penalty:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/28/newsid_3393000/3393807.stm
You decide. Should he have been hanged? :-/ :-/
Quite so Lizzie.
Did the phrase "Let him have it" conveyed to Bentley mean that he should shoot the police officer or that he should surrender his weapon to him instead?
That has been the big question of course for the last 57 years.
It is interesting to note that my link makes the following present day comment:
"Scientific evidence also showed the three police officers who testified about Bentley shouting "Let him have it" had lied under oath."
Never knew this myself Zulu ;) ;)
-
but didn't 12 independent jurors decide he meant "kill the policeman"?
Either way - a post-trial investigation into his mental health, using otherwise banned "truth" drugs and/or hypnosis, and/or <whatever> would have established the extent of his guilt.
-
but didn't 12 independent jurors decide he meant "kill the policeman"?
Either way - a post-trial investigation into his mental health, using otherwise banned "truth" drugs and/or hypnosis, and/or <whatever> would have established the extent of his guilt.
But were the jurors terrible wrong to interpret this as they did? "Let him have it" could well have meant give the policeman the gun. That has been the BIG issue with this case, and because Bentley had been hanged by the time serious doubts were raised, it was all too late. Hence the decision to halt the issuing of death penalties later.
-
I am worried about miscarriages of justice
Agreed, there have been a fair few here and in USA.
Same here.
In my greener days I would have said let's roll out the death penalty, but with the miscarriages of justice it wouldn't be right. We have seen it so many times.
This will sound like a huge contradiction but, just because someone is found guilty in a court of law doesn't mean they did it, and vice versa, although obviously we have to draw the line somewhere.
Whilst not being religious, who are we to decide who lives and who doesn't? Surely we should rise above the ways of the dreggs of humanity.
Terrorism however, that is different. They should be exterminated like the cancer of the planet they are. Committing crimes against the planet and its people, they're human in form only.
Oh yeah forgot to say, with the inclusion of DNA evidence etc, people seem to think that it is conclusive and removes all reasonable doubt. Yes, it is probably true (I'm no DNA scientist or whatever the proper name is for them) that the likelihood of sharing DNA with someone is 1 in so many billions, but if your DNA or anything like that is found at a crime scene or used to implicate you in some way, there could be many genuine and innocent reasons why your DNA could be there without you having done the crime. Slim, but possible, and people close their mind to this and think DNA is like the 'word of God'.
It would be unforgivable for the state to execute someone who was innocent, after using their flawd systems to prove guilt.
-
very rarely comes an example outside the general theories.. you only get whet you crop..
of course within the equation you must be able to control the environment.. but considering that also humans make up the environment factors we again turn back to the starting point imo..
so...
we should execute the parents and teachers of the murderers as well?
that was tongue-in-cheek to be honest. but you have to start somewhere.
may be we should just sterilise the families of the convicted murderers, and ban them from having any contact with other peoples children?
I grew up with, and was best friends with, a complete toe-rag.
football hooligan. alcoholic. smackhead. smoking at 12. burgling.
he drew the line at mugging old ladies. and spent three years in yong offender's nick for putting one such in a wheelchair.
he died at 21 of a gas-sniffing heart attack.
his parents were middle=class educated "normal" people.
He and I were raised together, pretty much as a single family with four parents - effectively he and I were brought up in the same environment.
I've NEVER smoked, let alone taken drugs. I've never had any dealings with the police (except for the odd traffic offence ::) ), I've never robbed - and I'm essentially non-violent.
How does that fit your "environment" theory?
-
but didn't 12 independent jurors decide he meant "kill the policeman"?
But were the jurors terrible wrong to interpret this as they did? "Let him have it" could well have meant give the policeman the gun. That has been the BIG issue with this case, and because Bentley had been hanged by the time serious doubts were raised, it was all too late. Hence the decision to halt the issuing of death penalties later.
I don't know.
I wasn't there.
Nor have I read the transcript of the trial.
The twelve jurors WERE there. And saw the entire trial.
Therefore I have to believe:
1. They know more of the facts than I do.
2. They had no ulterior motive to convict beyond the evidence.
3. They made the correct decision.
Hindsight is wonderful - but even if the conviction WAS wrong.
That points to the "trial by jury" system as being wrong, and NOT the death penalty [1]
[1] Cat. Pigeons. Mix
-
Yes, when there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever in both legal and actual terms, especially when the victim is a police officer or a child.
I think that should include any public servant or health worker if in the line of duty.....
-
but didn't 12 independent jurors decide he meant "kill the policeman"?
But were the jurors terrible wrong to interpret this as they did? "Let him have it" could well have meant give the policeman the gun. That has been the BIG issue with this case, and because Bentley had been hanged by the time serious doubts were raised, it was all too late. Hence the decision to halt the issuing of death penalties later.
I don't know.
I wasn't there.
Nor have I read the transcript of the trial.
The twelve jurors WERE there. And saw the entire trial.
Therefore I have to believe:
1. They know more of the facts than I do.
2. They had no ulterior motive to convict beyond the evidence.
3. They made the correct decision.
Hindsight is wonderful - but even if the conviction WAS wrong.
That points to the "trial by jury" system as being wrong, and NOT the death penalty [1]
[1] Cat. Pigeons. Mix
You make some reasonable points there Egg however;
but even if the conviction WAS wrong.
That points to the "trial by jury" system as being wrong, and NOT the death penalty
Is there not a degree of perversity in that statement as surely it must be quite wrong for a penalty (death in this case) to be handed down on the back of a conviction based on flawed or incorrect evidence?
-
my daughter has just made a (I think) relevant comment.
given that the convict's family is likely to suffer much more from publicity following conviction - in the case of ian brady or fred west or the jamie bulger killers, for perhaps 10 or twenty years - maybe the convict should be given the choice of life or death?
-
Yes, when there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever in both legal and actual terms, especially when the victim is a police officer or a child.
I think that should include any public servant or health worker if in the line of duty.....
But surely all life is equal so how can you value one life above another? Yes if a policeman for example was killed, that would be an aggravating factor, as he would be enforcing the law, (nothing against the police here) but his life isn't worth more or less than the life of anyone else.
-
Yes, when there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever in both legal and actual terms, especially when the victim is a police officer or a child.
I think that should include any public servant or health worker if in the line of duty.....
Does that mean that their lives are worth more than someone elses :-/
Murder is murder no matter who it is.
-
You make some reasonable points there Egg however;
but even if the conviction WAS wrong.
That points to the "trial by jury" system as being wrong, and NOT the death penalty
Is there not a degree of perversity in that statement as surely it must be quite wrong for a penalty (death in this case) to be handed down on the back of a conviction based on flawed or incorrect evidence?
hence why I believe that a conviction by jury should be backed up by psychologists, psychistrists or <whoever's> evidence as well.
perhaps 12 independent jurors + 6? independent reports based on truth drugs, lie detectors, or whatever. I'm quite certain that there are medical techniques (not permissable in court) which can establish degree of innnocence.
And if there AREN'T.
Then I am AGAINST the death penalty.
-
As the old saying goes,"an eye for an eye",the law in this country is an absoloute joke. >:(
-
I have to ask, what about hindly and sutcliffe? should they not have been put down on conviction?
-
very rarely comes an example outside the general theories.. you only get whet you crop..
of course within the equation you must be able to control the environment.. but considering that also humans make up the environment factors we again turn back to the starting point imo..
so...
we should execute the parents and teachers of the murderers as well?
that was tongue-in-cheek to be honest. but you have to start somewhere.
may be we should just sterilise the families of the convicted murderers, and ban them from having any contact with other peoples children?
I grew up with, and was best friends with, a complete toe-rag.
football hooligan. alcoholic. smackhead. smoking at 12. burgling.
he drew the line at mugging old ladies. and spent three years in yong offender's nick for putting one such in a wheelchair.
he died at 21 of a gas-sniffing heart attack.
his parents were middle=class educated "normal" people.
that statement hides the answer actually.. people seeming "normal" from outside can be really deceptive..have witnessed lots of cases.. you can never know unless you live with them 7/24..
for you to claim very similiar past and experiences you must be the twins , no other way I'm afraid..
He and I were raised together, pretty much as a single family with four parents - effectively he and I were brought up in the same environment.
as I said, people behave different to parents/children when they are alone.. :(
I've NEVER smoked, let alone taken drugs. I've never had any dealings with the police (except for the odd traffic offence ::) ), I've never robbed - and I'm essentially non-violent.
How does that fit your "environment" theory?
as I said above, personality starts from the second you are inside your mother.. and all other later epxeriences shape you.. thats not only a theory , a well known fact..
and I also must note, in my opinion not everyone have the real sufficiency/competency to grow children.. most of our community problems we face now stems from that very reason :( no need to search other causes..
-
i agree.
but how do you stem the problem?
benefits only for married parents might be a start
-
i agree.
but how do you stem the problem?
benefits only for married parents might be a start
the solution/starting point have multiple branches,
economical being the first , political second .. and some other details which is quite long to write here..
and without doubt will take some time, planning and investment :-/
-
As the old saying goes,"an eye for an eye",the law in this country is an absoloute joke. >:(
so you're saying we should have state sanctioned revenge then? Ridiculous. We, unlike Iran and some states of the US are a civilised country, take your medieval preachings elsewhere :y
-
As the old saying goes,"an eye for an eye",the law in this country is an absoloute joke. >:(
so you're saying we should have state sanctioned revenge then? Ridiculous. We, unlike Iran and some states of the US are a civilised country, take your medieval preachings elsewhere :y
and what a very thin veneer of civilisation it is.
-
i agree.
but how do you stem the problem?
benefits only for married parents might be a start
Marriage, or lack of marriage has got nothing to do with parenting skills or ability.
-
As I have stated I am in favour of the death penalty "when there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever in both legal and actual terms"
This is what must be avoided at all costs; the Derek Bentley case which is still debated today and supports the view against the death penalty:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/28/newsid_3393000/3393807.stm
You decide. Should he have been hanged? :-/ :-/
Quite so Lizzie.
Did the phrase "Let him have it" conveyed to Bentley mean that he should shoot the police officer or that he should surrender his weapon to him instead?
That has been the big question of course for the last 57 years.
It is interesting to note that my link makes the following present day comment:
"Scientific evidence also showed the three police officers who testified about Bentley shouting "Let him have it" had lied under oath."
Never knew this myself Zulu ;) ;)
had lied under oath
I must admit that it wouldn't have been for the first time although I don’t know precisely what these officers did to warrant mention.
I do have however direct experience of this in a few cases I was involved in some years ago - the officers concerned were subsequently dealt with.
Whatever the motivation their perjury rendered just evidence void and cast doubt over the integrity of the entire book of evidence presented by the prosecution in the cases concerned.
It was a sad day in my career on each of the occasions I was present to witness this.
-
I feel that in order to give Death as a sentance then there must be absolute certainty in that the "doer" is guilty... Aside from that, it should depend to some amount as to the nature of the case involved...
It does anger me when I hear of the cost of keeping these creatures in prison, but, there are some instances in which I see death as being lenient, where, a murder has been so violent and cold that life obviously means nothing to the killer... At this point blow torches and pliers come to mind...
I also believe that punishments should fit the crime and that the modern prison service needs to be reviewed. The perception of prisons today, make them appear very comfortable places..
With regard to Derek Bentley, I feel that he shouldn't have been executed, regardless as to what was meant by the "Let him have it!" comment... He was mentally disabled and although he was 19, only had the mental age of an 11 yer old...
-
I feel that in order to give Death as a sentance then there must be absolute certainty in that the "doer" is guilty... Aside from that, it should depend to some amount as to the nature of the case involved...
It does anger me when I hear of the cost of keeping these creatures in prison, but, there are some instances in which I see death as being lenient, where, a murder has been so violent and cold that life obviously means nothing to the killer... At this point blow torches and pliers come to mind...
I also believe that punishments should fit the crime and that the modern prison service needs to be reviewed. The perception of prisons today, make them appear very comfortable places..
With regard to Derek Bentley, I feel that he shouldn't have been executed, regardless as to what was meant by the "Let him have it!" comment... He was mentally disabled and although he was 19, only had the mental age of an 11 yer old...
no such thing - many seemingly cast iron convictions for murder have been overturned in light of new evidence or on appeal :o
-
I have always been firmly against the death penalty for many different reasons, but I must admit that I am starting to waver.
Someone has got to do something about the apparently ever increasing number of hideous crimes which seem to attract very little in the way of punishment in this country.
We have become a complete soft touch in almost any way you care to mention. And those who would wish to engage in commiting such acts are well aware of this.
Something has to change, soon.
-
I have always been firmly against the death penalty for many different reasons, but I must admit that I am starting to waver.
Someone has got to do something about the apparently ever increasing number of hideous crimes which seem to attract very little in the way of punishment in this country.
We have become a complete soft touch in almost any way you care to mention. And those who would wish to engage in commiting such acts are well aware of this.
Something has to change, soon.
I do agree in part, I think the entire system of criminal justice in this country (especially where sentencing and the custodial regime are concerned) needs an overhaul - but not of the Ken Clark variety.
-
another point I must note,
if you apply death penalty to any murder, knowing that, those people will start complete cleaning (multiple murders) .. and you must shot them to catch , no way otherwise :-/
-
"feed em to the pigs harold"
govt should open up a pig farm and send the condemned them there :)
-
"feed em to the pigs harold"
govt should open up a pig farm and send the condemned them there :)
hey - i like bacon, so...err no thanks Richie :o
-
I feel that in order to give Death as a sentance then there must be absolute certainty in that the "doer" is guilty... Aside from that, it should depend to some amount as to the nature of the case involved...
It does anger me when I hear of the cost of keeping these creatures in prison, but, there are some instances in which I see death as being lenient, where, a murder has been so violent and cold that life obviously means nothing to the killer... At this point blow torches and pliers come to mind...
I also believe that punishments should fit the crime and that the modern prison service needs to be reviewed. The perception of prisons today, make them appear very comfortable places..
With regard to Derek Bentley, I feel that he shouldn't have been executed, regardless as to what was meant by the "Let him have it!" comment... He was mentally disabled and although he was 19, only had the mental age of an 11 yer old...
That will should play on the conscience of this country, and would have to be a consideration in any process to bring back the death penalty.
-
A resounding yes for me providing guilt it beyond reasonable doubt. Why should we fork out thousands of pounds to keep some of these sick wacko's in prison year after year?!! >:(
-
i agree.
but how do you stem the problem?
benefits only for married parents might be a start
Marriage, or lack of marriage has got nothing to do with parenting skills or ability.
True. but it doubles the chances that at least ONE of the parents has some.
-
Definately YES - Life for a Life providing it is absolutely proved that the perpetrator is Guilty. There have been too many miscarriages of justice - Jonathan Evans comes to mind. Many years ago maybe but a gross miscarriage of justice nonetheless.
Custodial sentences seem to be no deterent nowadays. Acts of terrorism should definately bring the death penalty if they have taken life- in the current climate most of them (terrorists that is) want to be martrys anyway so really we'd be doing them a favour if they don't manage to detonate themselves
-
I vary so much on this, sometimes pro sometime anti, very worried about miscarriages, but killed during crime I think fair enough
-
Absoloutley NOT. Most of these sickos want to die, why give them the pleasure? Make them live in fear of attack from other inmates...yes they do get attacked despite segregation, Roy Whiting, stabbed in the face, Ian Huntley, throat cut, many more such cases & good on 'em. Death spares them such terror & pain, they should stay in for natural life.
If they were to serve hard labour, bread & water diet minmal if any medical/dental care, TV/Radio, visits, newspapers, they would cost a fraction of todays prices in keep & die much earlier so the money argument would'nt stand.
-
Unfortunately Guy, the EU and its yumin rites laws would never allow us to save taxpayers money in that way. :(
In fact I was reading just yesterday that a murderer who killed an elderly couple in cold blood has won a court case against the prison service, so that they now have to address him as "Mr Gunner", as he was apparently not being shown enough respect by the warders. >:( >:(
-
i agree.
but how do you stem the problem?
benefits only for married parents might be a start
Marriage, or lack of marriage has got nothing to do with parenting skills or ability.
True. but it doubles the chances that at least ONE of the parents has some.
I think you've just made a rather large and silly contradiction there! :o
Marriage, or lack of marriage has got nothing to do with parenting skills or ability. Nor is it for me to judge other peoples parenting skills, but of course that doesn't mean we don't have own opinions!
Just because two people choose not to have their partnership recognised in law, the law which is a shambles in this country IMO, has no bearing whatsoever on their character or anything aout them.
-
Unfortunately Guy, the EU and its yumin rites laws would never allow us to save taxpayers money in that way. :(
In fact I was reading just yesterday that a murderer who killed an elderly couple in cold blood has won a court case against the prison service, so that they now have to address him as "Mr Gunner", as he was apparently not being shown enough respect by the warders. >:( >:(
Ridiculous is'nt it? How much legal aid could we have saved by slapping him across the chops & telling him to keep digging pointless trenches over & over again? In 1981 i had to do that for minor offences in HMDC Haslar, Gosport.
How things change! ::)
-
You obviously learnt a lesson Guy. I wonder if you would learn the same lesson today if you were sentenced to" a holiday to find your inner self" ? ;)
-
Well the poll's now closed and although only 64 votes, it is only a snapshot of how people feel, not a complete picture. But from the poll it would seam that people would consider it being brought back.
Thanks to those who took the time to comment and vote.
I may consider running for election next year !!!! ::)
M :y