Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SJKOO01]

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 ?.

[Lizzie_Zoom]

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.

[millwall]

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

[SJKOO01]

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?.

[RobG]

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

[FoxyV6]

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???

[Mysteryman]

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.

[Lizzie_Zoom]

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.

[Martin_1962]

I am worried about miscarriages of justice

[Lizzie_Zoom]

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? :-/ :-/

[cem_devecioglu]

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 

[Dishevelled Den]

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.

[HolyCount]

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".

[Di]

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

[bigegg]

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>