View Full Version : Should We Bring Back the Death Penalty?
I’m sure this topic has been done to death on the Org in the past, but not recently. And a few orgers have suggested bringing it back on the current battered baby thread.
I would say never. I think it’s impossible to have the death penalty in a civilised society.
If one innocent person were put to death it would be one too many.
Some US states still have the death penalty. Those states are less than civilised. The people on death row in those states are disproportionately black or of low IQ or mentally ill. You can never get a legal system which is totally impartial regardless of how rich/poor, well-connected/totally without support, etc., you are and when a punishment is as extreme as death it cannot be right.
And how would you bring about death? Hanging, lethal injection, electrocution? None are “humane.” We could not call ourselves civilised and do this.
Oh, I just don't know. Sometimes I think 50 lashes would cure a few people, but then there's the whole spectre of torture, waterboarding and so on. What do you think?
kitty kat
13-Nov-08, 13:39
i do think we need it but then again if it were to come back how many threads would we have about innocent people getting the chair injection etc wrongly
then everyone wanting it gone again?
anneoctober
13-Nov-08, 13:42
Pure & simple - yes. I for one am sick of our kids being murdered, abused etc. It's black & white for me and is MY opinion on the matter.
AfternoonDelight
13-Nov-08, 13:44
I'm with you Tilter - some stories I read about contain unimaginable cruelty and I think those people have no right to live. but then death is perhaps too good for them as well because they would be absolved of their guilt (if they felt it) and they should be made to suffer in life.
There is definitely a lack of deterrent for crime these days - prisons are more like hotels due to the human rights act.
Then we get to the cost of keeping criminals - how many other wonderful things could that money be spent on.
I really don't have any answers on this one but I do think that the death penalty is very hard to regulate and guilt in some cases very hard to prove. As you say - the thought of one innocent person dying is enough to make me say "no".
Perhaps a harder prison system like Death Row but without the end result would be a happy medium. A lot of prisoners in the US are kept for many years before they are executed. Life meaning life and not "12 years but out in 6 if you are good" - might also help...
I’m sure this topic has been done to death on the Org in the past, but not recently. And a few orgers have suggested bringing it back on the current battered baby thread.
I would say never. I think it’s impossible to have the death penalty in a civilised society.
If one innocent person were put to death it would be one too many.
Some US states still have the death penalty. Those states are less than civilised. The people on death row in those states are disproportionately black or of low IQ or mentally ill. You can never get a legal system which is totally impartial regardless of how rich/poor, well-connected/totally without support, etc., you are and when a punishment is as extreme as death it cannot be right.
And how would you bring about death? Hanging, lethal injection, electrocution? None are “humane.” We could not call ourselves civilised and do this.
Oh, I just don't know. Sometimes I think 50 lashes would cure a few people, but then there's the whole spectre of torture, waterboarding and so on. What do you think?
You say about it not being humane, but what about the victims of these sick individuals. Were they humanely killed by the person who is now sat on death row, NO. they lost their right to life at the hands of another and as the bible says, Eye for an eye, well in the case of horrific murders, it should be.
Yes its sad when an individual who is innocent is executed,and they have atleast 15-20 years on death row to prove that innocence, but the majority of prisoners are guilty and should be punished.
I am all for capital punishment where warranted and i think sometimes we should bring it back to britain, but then like you i think and do believe everyone has the right to life, but you take a life you forfit your own existence.
Metalattakk
13-Nov-08, 14:05
I would say never. I think it’s impossible to have the death penalty in a civilised society.
If one innocent person were put to death it would be one too many.
I can only concur. Killing people is wrong, and two 'wrongs' don't make a 'right'.
Then we get to the cost of keeping criminals - how many other wonderful things could that money be spent on.
It has been proven in the US that the cost of an execution is higher than the cost of locking the criminal up for life, due to the costs of the endless appeals and their processes. It's worth pointing out that the daily cost of imprisoning a criminal in the US is far, far less than here in the UK.
That is one thing that should be changed in my view.
Perhaps a harder prison system like Death Row but without the end result would be a happy medium. A lot of prisoners in the US are kept for many years before they are executed. Life meaning life and not "12 years but out in 6 if you are good" - might also help...
Indeed it would.
From a personal point of view I would say yes.
Those who say no, have not had the experience of losing a precious and much missed family member through the inhumanity of others.
An eye for an eye would be an appropriate ending for those who see fit to kill.
For those men who tortured and killed that baby, throw them into a women's prison and ignore their cries for help.
For the baby's mother throw her into an insane asylum and throw away the key.
Anyone, who sees fit to commit a crime should be prepared to do the time.
[disgust]
AfternoonDelight
13-Nov-08, 14:25
It has been proven in the US that the cost of an execution is higher than the cost of locking the criminal up for life, due to the costs of the endless appeals and their processes. It's worth pointing out that the daily cost of imprisoning a criminal in the US is far, far less than here in the UK.
That is one thing that should be changed in my view.
Interesting stat, thanks.
Two wrongs don't make a right, whoever flicked the switch or administered the lethal injection would be a murderer too. Killing is wrong for whatever reason.
Over the years there must be countless crimes that have been pinned to the wrong man just to appease the public or make the government look good.
Prisons need to be prisons, take away there tv's, pool tables and whatever recreational activities they have, less visits from family, NO cigarettes etc etc.. For some prison must be preferable, no bills, no responsibilities, they don't make any decisions, every day is the same, fed, watered and entertained and a nice wee job on the inside.
No and then NO Again.
Just look how many People over the past years have been charged with what would have been a capital crime and then years later evidence has come to light and has proved their innocence.
If there had been a Death Penalty then it would have been too late as they would be DEAD.
Even if there is a chance of even only one miscarriage of Justice and only one person was Excuted who was innocent, then this is One person too many.
The Death Penality never was a deterrant when it was on the statute book, so why would it make any difference now.
As a society we are supposed to progress and become more civilised and not revert to what we were back in the Dark Ages.
I am sure all people who advocate for ther Death Penality would suddenly change their mind if they were falsely accused of a Capital Crime. Do not say this could not happen because it just might.
Prisons need to be prisons, take away there tv's, pool tables and whatever recreational activities they have, less visits from family, NO cigarettes etc etc.. For some prison must be preferable, no bills, no responsibilities, they don't make any decisions, every day is the same, fed, watered and entertained and a nice wee job on the inside.
You have to remember that not everyone serving a prision sentence is a bad person, the point of prison is to take away a persons liberty, not to deprive them of everything outside of food and shelter, prison is an easy option for some people, but not everyone, and it's certainly not as cushy as some would have you believe, those who say prison is like a holiday camp have obviously never spent any time in one, physically it may not be that tough, but on a mental level it's crushing, you people have no idea what it's really like.
No and then NO Again.
Just look how many People over the past years have been charged with what would have been a capital crime and then years later evidence has come to light and has proved their innocence.
If there had been a Death Penalty then it would have been too late as they would be DEAD.
Even if there is a chance of even only one miscarriage of Justice and only one person was Excuted who was innocent, then this is One person too many.
The Death Penality never was a deterrant when it was on the statute book, so why would it make any difference now.
As a society we are supposed to progress and become more civilised and not revert to what we were back in the Dark Ages.
I am sure all people who advocate for ther Death Penality would suddenly change their mind if they were falsely accused of a Capital Crime. Do not say this could not happen because it just might.
I understand what you are saying and know personally someone to whom this happened, this person suffered a harrowing experience through the courts etc but at least he lived to tell the tale.
I voted no, not because i don't feel that child murderers should be put to death, but purely because the justice system is far too flawed and too many innocent people have been convicted of crimes they did not commit.
Valerie Campbell
13-Nov-08, 16:48
Maybe hard labour would serve people who are convicted of heinous crimes better...
I voted yes-but to a degree. I think it should only be used as a last resort and only if its 100% certain that the person murdered. Its too easy to blame people for a crime, if you say it often enough people will believe it to be true.
We all know what the caithness rumour mill is like ,for example,someone mentions indirectly that someone is a paedo,child abuser etc and before you know it the person is guilty as charged without us knowing all the facts(has happened on here as well).I know the court system is different but we all view news by some form of media so cant help but be biased in our judgements,that is why i would only use it when theres a 100% clarity and the person confessed wholeheartedly.
Have read some say "if you take a life you deserve the death penalty" or an "eye for an eye", well what happens if you killed a paedophile or extracted revenge on someone who killed someone close to you, does that then mean that you deserve to die too then?-think about it!
You have to remember that not everyone serving a prision sentence is a bad person, the point of prison is to take away a persons liberty, not to deprive them of everything outside of food and shelter, prison is an easy option for some people, but not everyone, and it's certainly not as cushy as some would have you believe, those who say prison is like a holiday camp have obviously never spent any time in one, physically it may not be that tough, but on a mental level it's crushing, you people have no idea what it's really like.
Too true I did 28 days for telling someone where to go!! It (in my eyes) wasnt warranted but thank god i didnt tell the queen where to go (not that I would:D) they could have shot me for that!![lol]
percy toboggan
13-Nov-08, 17:34
only for certain kinds of murders. Not for militant terrorists, who may wish to be seen as martyrs...anything with a premeditated motive for gain, or to satisfy carnal lust - alcohol no excuse - anything involving innocent children, officers of the law or Prison officers...the first lot, well I could be persuaded if their cardboard coffins were filled out with pork scratchings.
percy toboggan
13-Nov-08, 17:35
You have to remember that not everyone serving a prision sentence is a bad person, the point of prison is to take away a persons liberty, not to deprive them of everything outside of food and shelter, prison is an easy option for some people, but not everyone, and it's certainly not as cushy as some would have you believe, those who say prison is like a holiday camp have obviously never spent any time in one, physically it may not be that tough, but on a mental level it's crushing, you people have no idea what it's really like.
Did you ever go to Pontin's at Pwhelli?
Absolutely not. Not only because innocent people would be killed but because it achieves nothing - it is not a deterrent. All it does is satisfy desire for revenge and how long does that satisfaction last I wonder? If someone I loved was killed nothing would make me feel any better. Legalised murder has no place in a civilised society, which we are obviously not now but we can still hope.
Not that our overcrowded gaols are achieving anything either but there are far too many people in gaol who shouldn't be there and it seems most come out worse than when they went in.
Green_not_greed
13-Nov-08, 17:56
I'd have to say YES to bringing it back, on the basis that only those with concrete evidence against them are given the sentence, and that it is humane (for example - put to sleep then lethal injection).
In the past there were probably a lot more innocents killed through the death penalty than we believe or could ever prove. However, there have been huge developments since then - notably in use of DNA evidence - through which it can now be proven beyond any doubt that those accused are indeed guilty.
Without it, the country has absolutely no deterrent against murder and other serious crimes.
teenybash
13-Nov-08, 18:31
In the past, it is now believed the death penalty was not a deterrent, the question is...would it be now?....I think yes.
If no punishment is in place for those who commit the most horrendous killings such as their own children and there is absolute concrete proof that they are guilty.....then they should pay with their life.
Surely it is wrong that we sit patting ourselves on our pious backs saying, ''we are a civilized nation and to bring back the death penalty is barbaric.''
And while we sit and do nothing to deter, children are killing children, mothers and fathers are killing their own babies...........surely the tortured souls of these tiny innocents deserve better than our society and this nation trying to salve it own conscious by doing nothing and like cowards standing back and allowing the horrors to continue.:~(
Metalattakk
13-Nov-08, 18:49
In the past, it is now believed the death penalty was not a deterrent, the question is...would it be now?....I think yes.
What exactly do you base your thoughts on?
I am dumbfounded by this thread !!!!!
Do any of us (myself included) think we can change the laws of this country by "arguing/discussing" amongst ourselves ?
Nothing will change in "Great" Britain because of the rules of our Government of which we ALL answer to!!
My own personal thoughts on bringing back hanging are this - the Bible tells us "God giveth and God taketh away", but as others on this thread have already said another would be "An eye for an eye". I KNOW my beliefs and I thing it outrageous to kill ANY human being, under ANY circumstances !!
Let's concentrate more on the laws of this land being much tighter than they are just now.
For eg. - a small child being killed by a drunk driver on a pavement whilst walking with his mother. That wee child was mowed down, leaving the suffering of his/her Mother and family and then said driver goes to court where, he gets an 18 month ban and two years in prison?????
Is THIS justice ???????? Twenty years to "life" (MEANING LIFE !!!) would seem more appropriate to me, and give the driver plenty of time to think about what they have caused.........
I am dumbfounded by this thread !!!!!
My own personal thoughts on bringing back hanging are this - the Bible tells us "God giveth and God taketh away", but as others on this thread have already said another would be "An eye for an eye". I KNOW my beliefs and I thing it outrageous to kill ANY human being, under ANY circumstances !!
Has no one told you that The Bible is work of fiction?
teenybash
13-Nov-08, 19:58
What exactly do you base your thoughts on?
Perhaps you should share your thoughts and then I could ask you the question you have asked me.
Metalattakk
13-Nov-08, 20:09
Have you read this thread?
How do you come to the belief that the death penalty is a successful deterrent against murder?
teenybash
13-Nov-08, 21:15
Have you read this thread?
How do you come to the belief that the death penalty is a successful deterrent against murder?
MA I have read this thread and taken onboard the varied opinions but, what I don't see is suggestions of other possible deterrents that would change my mind.
Many years ago a relative of mine was brutally murdered leaving behind a wife with three young sons to bring up on her own.................they have never felt justice was done.
We have no way of knowing if the threat of possible death in relation to murder would be a deterrent but, what are the alternatives?
I haven't voted as my opinion is not written in stone and I would love to be persuaded to change what I feel at the moment.
Metalattakk
13-Nov-08, 21:31
MA I have read this thread and taken onboard the varied opinions but, what I don't see is suggestions of other possible deterrents that would change my mind.
Many years ago a relative of mine was brutally murdered leaving behind a wife with three young sons to bring up on her own.................they have never felt justice was done.
And they never will, I'm sure. Would they be happier if the killer was also killed? What a strange mindset that would show.
We have no way of knowing if the threat of possible death in relation to murder would be a deterrent but, what are the alternatives?
We have plenty of knowledge. Just look at the US states who use the death penalty. It hasn't stopped it, and it hasn't lessened it.
The alternative is to make prison terms stricter and longer. Life sentences should mean 'life', not '20 years' or '12 years and out in 8'. These people need to be removed from society, for the safety of others foremost, and to punish them and show others that this is how they too will be punished under the same circumstances.
Vengeance cannot be allowed to enter the equation, as that makes us no better than the perpetrator.
I haven't voted as my opinion is not written in stone and I would love to be persuaded to change what I feel at the moment.
I can only hope you can see the magnitude of the idea of killing people for killing people, and not just succumb to the easily-understandable reaction towards bloody vengeance.
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." - Gandhi.
I am dumbfounded by this thread !!!!! Do any of us (myself included) think we can change the laws of this country by "arguing/discussing" amongst ourselves ?
Iffy, I don’t understand why you’re dumbfounded. Of course we can’t change the laws on the Org. It’s a hypothetical debate. It’s interesting to find out how other people think and to listen to other people’s ideas.
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." - Ghandi.
What a great quote. I never heard it before.
DeHaviLand
13-Nov-08, 21:52
The question has to be, " is the death penalty a deterrent?" On the basis that no-one who has been executed, has ever gone on to commit another offence, I vote YES.
cuddlepop
13-Nov-08, 21:57
No I do not think the death penalty should be brought back into Britain.
What I would like to see is a change to the meaning of a life sentence.It should meant till that person dies a natural death inside the four walls.
There should be no parole for good behaviour.No priviliges,like Tv etc in theie single cell.:mad:
Prison should be a living hell for them,that for me would be a better punishment.:(
Metalattakk
13-Nov-08, 22:06
The question has to be, " is the death penalty a deterrent?" On the basis that no-one who has been executed, has ever gone on to commit another offence, I vote YES.
Flawed logic there, mate. :roll:
And we can see why the government won't put this to a public vote now, can't we?
DeHaviLand
13-Nov-08, 22:21
Flawed logic there, mate. :roll:
And we can see why the government won't put this to a public vote now, can't we?
Levity, my dear boy, levity.
Metalattakk
13-Nov-08, 22:46
Brevity, old chap, brevity.
:D
It's not going to stop people murdering other people, never did and never will.
Whitewater
14-Nov-08, 00:28
This is a difficult question to answer. Innocent people have been put to death all over the world.
You listen to the news, read the papers, every day there is somebody being murdered or so badly beaten and injured that they become vegetables for the remainder of their lives. There are no deterents in this country for criminals, in many cases the victims are forgotten about and all sort of wierd and wonderful pleas are made on behalf of the perpetrators of the crime no matter how heinous. The cry is always for their human rights, no word about the rights they so viscously removed from their victims.
I have debated this subject many times over the years and I must admit I was always been against the death penalty because of the many innocent people who have been executed in the past, but now I'm afraid I changed my mind. Where guilt has been proven without doubt they should be excecuted.
Prison is too soft in this country, suing the government for slopping out? What nonsense, they are in prison to be punished. They ought to be kept in leg irons like their American counterparts, and if they are in for life it should be life.
I've had my rant but that is the way that I feel now, as do many others. I'm sick and tired of the dreadful crimes in this country which are on the increase while we stand by and can do nothing about it because we will be breaching their human rights. What hogwash. I'm afraid the 'do gooders' are winning but they don't realise that no matter how much you appease these people they do not want it, they just laugh in your face, and continue on their criminal ways.
You will be thinking I've lost my faith in mankind, true to some extent, but when you are close to people who have had their child murdered for no other reason than being in the wrong place at the wrong time you tend to view life differently.
No way! If people think murder is such a bad thing, what right have we to take the life of someone else?! Thats someones life no matter how bad they are. Cant we just lock them away?
Generally speaking, I would not bring back the death penalty because you can never be absolutely 100% sure that the right person has been convicted. There have been mistakes made in the past. However life should mean life, no reduction for good behaviour.
But I admit I am contradicting myself when I think that in the case of terrorism I would have no hesitation in restoring the death penalty. I know that they could be regarded as martyrs to their cause, but get rid of enough of them and the rest just might think twice. They are not concerned about the human rights of the people they maim and kill so why should we think of theirs? They have given up their human rights when they take part in indiscriminate killing.http://forum.caithness.org/images/icons/icon8.gif
Seems strange that most folk posting a view seem to be against it but the vote seems to be going in favour of capital punishment.
I think that this is because in general folk who are in favour of the death penalty have no real argument to counter the fact that innocent people will enevitably be killed. They tend to be either upper class right wingers who wont frequent this forum or slightly dim, Times or Daily Star readers who dont really have the inteligence to think it through or to explain their reasoning in writing.
They are the same folk who say things like "all peodos should be killed".
Seems strange that most folk posting a view seem to be against it but the vote seems to be going in favour of capital punishment.
I think that this is because in general folk who are in favour of the death penalty have no real argument to counter the fact that innocent people will enevitably be killed. They tend to be either upper class right wingers who wont frequent this forum or slightly dim, Times or Daily Star readers who dont really have the inteligence to think it through or to explain their reasoning in writing.
They are the same folk who say things like "all peodos should be killed".
The upper-class, right whingers could also be slightly dim with not enough intelligence to put their opinion into writing.[lol]
I believe No No No !
okay right now as a nation we are angry with the Baby B situation did that Baby have a actual name the wee mite ?
I said before the whole situation is so shocking we can not comprehend as parents how this could happen today in this society but it did happen
But a life for a life no way
So many people today shout for the death penalty but with corruption and the R word etc in every walk of life how do we know its a fair trial
British justice does not always prevail
this thread has come out of hatred for all that happened to that poor mite
so do we hang all social workers from Haringey (excuse spelling )Drs childminders all who were about the wee boy who in my opinion should be brought to task in some way or
get a set of eyes and ears and pay heed to what people are saying
And what about about all the folk that have been wrongly accused in the past and have been pardoned it be a bit late for them then !!!
I wrote an essay on this once. Found some great things about it like that last hangman and the last man and woman to be hung/killed...And i think it was something like either both of them were innocent wen new evidence popped up several years later or it was the last 2 men..totally forgotten. All i can say is do yer research before voting the poll!!
And what about about all the folk that have been wrongly accused in the past and have been pardoned it be a bit late for them then !!!
And what about the folk that have been murdered in cold blood and the person that did it got away with it?!!
Metalattakk
14-Nov-08, 02:37
Seems strange that most folk posting a view seem to be against it but the vote seems to be going in favour of capital punishment.
I think that this is because in general folk who are in favour of the death penalty have no real argument to counter the fact that innocent people will enevitably be killed. They tend to be either upper class right wingers who wont frequent this forum or slightly dim, Times or Daily Star readers who dont really have the inteligence to think it through or to explain their reasoning in writing.
They are the same folk who say things like "all peodos should be killed".
Again, that's why the government will never put this to a public vote. There's just too many reactionary idiots out there, unable to form a sensible opinion on this matter.
And what about the folk that have been murdered in cold blood and the person that did it got away with it?!!
What of them? Kill them anyway because the jury 'got it wrong'? Kill the prosecution team because they 'got it wrong'?
Where does it end? Kill the police because they didn't catch them?
Aaldtimer
14-Nov-08, 04:11
And what about the folk that have been murdered in cold blood and the person that did it got away with it?!!
Justice in this country tends to lean to the side of the innocent.
"Innocent until proven guilty" is the by word, thank goodness.
I'd far rather see a murderer escape justice than an innocent person pay an unjust price.
It could be me....or you!:eek:
Pure & simple - yes. I for one am sick of our kids being murdered, abused etc. It's black & white for me and is MY opinion on the matter.
and mine Anne. ok, we always hear the "too many innocent people killed" thread. but we should have it where there is no doubt and in cases like these where " too many innocent children are killed"
ats exactly what i wis thinkin aaldtimer, it could be me or ye thats standin in 'e dock, wrongly accused o' murder :eek:
death penatly = no chance o' appeal.
i voted no, iv hed 'iss debate lots o' times wi ma little brither an done both sides for sake o' 'e debate.
ma auld cheil believes in 'e justice system an says if 'e jury says so then it must be, 'without reasonable doubt' blah blah....:roll:
wi' so much corruption, lies an deceite in 'e world who knows anything anymore....?
i base part o' ma opinion on 'e witch trials which swept europe between years 1500 an 1660. mass hysteria!
its lek someone said, all 'e world is a stage, an we are mearly players' :(
i hev til add that i really empathise wi anyone that hes lost a member o' their family or close friend because o' murderin scum....ma heart really dis go oot...
for the ones that there is no doubt of their crimes,shooters,stabbers,child killers,nonces,child abusers/batterers and those who cause death through their own disregard for others safety ie-drunk drivers.
hang em all,one appeal instead of the american system where they appeal after appeal and sit about for 15-20 years.a lot of these death row prisons haven't actually carried out an execution for several years.
How do you come to the belief that the death penalty is a successful deterrent against murder?[/quote]
no, to some it's not a detterant it's more a matter of putting out the garbage in our society
ats exactly what i wis thinkin aaldtimer, it could be me or ye thats standin in 'e dock, wrongly accused o' murder :eek:
death penatly = no chance o' appeal.
i voted no, iv hed 'iss debate lots o' times wi ma little brither an done both sides for sake o' 'e debate.
ma auld cheil believes in 'e justice system an says if 'e jury says so then it must be, 'without reasonable doubt' blah blah....:roll:
wi' so much corruption, lies an deceite in 'e world who knows anything anymore....?
i base part o' ma opinion on 'e witch trials which swept europe between years 1500 an 1660. mass hysteria!
its lek someone said, all 'e world is a stage, an we are mearly players' :(
i hev til add that i really empathise wi anyone that hes lost a member o' their family or close friend because o' murderin scum....ma heart really dis go oot...
the witch hunts were down to religious bible bashing control freaks to instill fear and control in the people and it's still going on in places ,anyone who kills for these reasons deserves to be hung-slowly
Metalattakk
14-Nov-08, 11:20
How do you come to the belief that the death penalty is a successful deterrent against murder?
no, to some it's not a detterant it's more a matter of putting out the garbage in our society
So what's wrong with locking the garbage away for the rest of their lives instead?
So what's wrong with locking the garbage away for the rest of their lives instead?
exactly, lock them up.
gie them 'e essentials, ie food, water, maybe 'e odd book or two. ats it tho, never til be free again.
a life for a life, in a civilised world.
So what's wrong with locking the garbage away for the rest of their lives instead?
why should they get the luxury of a life, however limited the conditions, when they snuffed out that "privellage" for their victims?
Absolutely not - people talk about the death penalty being used where there is "no doubt" but how many cases have been convicted where there was no doubt at the time and yet with hindsight convictions have been found to be unsafe. Fingerprints were thought to be infallible but that woman police officer proved that the fingerprint specialists made a mistake, DNA is said to be proof enough but in the future will we find there are flaws in that as well?
Take the case of Stefan Kiszko - I have mentioned it before but i make no apology for mentioning it again - convicted of the murder of Lesley Molseed from Rochdale. This man served 16 years for a murder he didnt commit. He had appealed and had his appeal turned down before finally being released in 1992. This man would have been hanged - make no mistake about it. We rely in a large part on human intervention in our justice system - witnesses, lawyers, lab assistants, police officers and jurors just for a start. Unfortunately we are all fallible, people lie, make mistakes, wrongly label things, and therefore we have to accept that there is a HUGE potential for hanging the wrong person. That is too high a price to pay in my opinion. Lets re-examine the prison system and look at the problems in our society but lets not kill what could be innocent people.
You can read the stefan kiszko case here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesley_Molseed_murder
Have read some say "if you take a life you deserve the death penalty" or an "eye for an eye", well what happens if you killed a paedophile or extracted revenge on someone who killed someone close to you, does that then mean that you deserve to die too then?-think about it!
Anyone who has lost someone close, may feel like killing the killer but the majority would not exact revenge because the majority have knowledge of what is right and what is wrong, it does not make them lessor people, just more ethical moral.
Just my opinion.:)
there is usually 3 stories involved in a court room trial.
prosecution story, defence story.....an of course 'e truth.
'e truth is irrelevant in most cases, its who hes 'e best laywer!
I voted against bringing back the death penalty, despite my feelings of sadness and horror at the death of that poor wee boy, Baby P, and despite the fact that my own feelings of helplessness make me thirst for vengeance.
I would like to see a life sentence for murder meaning just that. I don't think prison is necessarily a soft option. Our prisons are full to overflowing and I'd like to see far fewer folk, especially women, locked away for lesser crimes such as shoplifting, but people who have committed truly heinous crimes locked away for a very, very long time, probably for ever.
Removal of a person's liberty and especially removal of their hope of release is surely not a soft option.
Metalattakk
14-Nov-08, 13:49
why should they get the luxury of a life, however limited the conditions, when they snuffed out that "privellage" for their victims?
Because we live in a supposedly civilised society, where the taking of a life is deemed wrong. Again, you are just taking the 'eye for an eye' route, which is just too easy to do, and is ultimately barbaric.
Barbarism ≠ Civilisation.
Prisons need to be prisons, take away there tv's, pool tables and whatever recreational activities they have, less visits from family, NO cigarettes etc etc.. For some prison must be preferable, no bills, no responsibilities, they don't make any decisions, every day is the same, fed, watered and entertained and a nice wee job on the inside.
I agree with these feelings, why should they get all the nicities that most of us cannot afford but our tax money seems to give them. I do however feel that they should be educated, so that when they do leave prison that they have done something constructive with their time which did not involve entertainment. I feel that paedophiles should be in solitary confinement as a matter of course along with murderers and other equally dispicable crimes. I also feel that suing the government for having to slop out is wrong. Why should the taxpayer have to pay for their keep twice over in effect. If they had not committed the crime they would never have had to slop out anyway.[evil]
I'd have to say YES to bringing it back, on the basis that only those with concrete evidence against them are given the sentence, and that it is humane (for example - put to sleep then lethal injection).
In the past there were probably a lot more innocents killed through the death penalty than we believe or could ever prove. However, there have been huge developments since then - notably in use of DNA evidence - through which it can now be proven beyond any doubt that those accused are indeed guilty.
Without it, the country has absolutely no deterrent against murder and other serious crimes.
So what Exactly is concrete evidence.
MMMM perhaps the only concrete evedence would be a confession. Then if this was so no one would confess as they would know the result, DEATH.
Being tried by a Jury of 12 and all of them voting that the person was Guilty, mmm NO look how many times this has happened and then later to have been found innocent.
You are also putting too much into DNA Testing. There have been several cases where the DNA has been contaminated and given a false result. This could easily happen in any case and so it is still quite possible for a miscarrige of justice and a person who was innocent being put to Death.
It is the Job of a Defence Council to put up the best defence he/she can for his/her client, even if he knows they are guilty. Part of this defence is to create doubt and if in the end the client is found Guilty then out goes it being a concrete case as there was some doubt.
Also right now the person Jailed for the Lockerbie Bombing is still claiming he is innocent and some legal person, cant remember his name, has been quoted saying that there might have been a miscarrige of Justice. This was supposed to be a concrete case and he was definately guilty, now it is reported there is some doubt.
To have a Death Penalty for a capital crime but to say only if there was concrete evidence would not work as time goes by it is very often the case that what was thought to be solid evidence was not.
So I still say that as long there is the SLIGHTEST chance of an innocent person being put to death, no matter how humanely, then we as a society can not have any form of a Death Penalty.
What if you have someone who is an identical twin. His/her dna was found at murder scene but no fingerprint evidence. None have an alibi so who do you blame, who do you hang? An extreme scenario but relevant all the same.
But I admit I am contradicting myself when I think that in the case of terrorism I would have no hesitation in restoring the death penalty.
I think the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four, the Maguire Seven and Nelson Mandela may have something to say about that.
I think the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four, the Maguire Seven and Nelson Mandela may have something to say about that.Mandela was a terrorist but that is another thread.
There's a list here of countries which still have the death penalty: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777460.html. I.e., most of the dodgy places.
And Wikipedia does a map at http://en.wikipedia.or/wiki/Use_of_capital_punishment_by_nation
Mandela was a terrorist but that is another thread.
In some peoples eyes but imagine the differance if he had been killed.
And what about the other 17 people who would have been murdered by the state?
I say test on them. Pharmacy companies, makeup companies, detergents soaps..the list huge. At the moment animals are tested on to see if there are any reactions etc to these things.....and in the end they have to be tested on humans...so offer the person convicted the choice....the death penalty or be sponsored by a company that needs a lab rat, for this they get to live and the company picks up their expenses in jail...or there could be a special jail where they go that is solely paid for by the companies.
No more vivisection or rabbits getting soap powder put in their eyes. Instead the animals of our society can repay us by making sure things are safe for us to use.
Far fetched i know....but i still think its a good idea.
Shabbychic
15-Nov-08, 13:08
I say test on them. Pharmacy companies, makeup companies, detergents soaps..the list huge. At the moment animals are tested on to see if there are any reactions etc to these things.....and in the end they have to be tested on humans...so offer the person convicted the choice....the death penalty or be sponsored by a company that needs a lab rat, for this they get to live and the company picks up their expenses in jail...or there could be a special jail where they go that is solely paid for by the companies.
No more vivisection or rabbits getting soap powder put in their eyes. Instead the animals of our society can repay us by making sure things are safe for us to use.
Far fetched i know....but i still think its a good idea.
I think a guy called Hitler and his mates thought along they lines as well.
Hitler persecuted INNOCENTS.....hardly the same. Correct me if i'm wrong but i thought we were talking about murderers, paedophiles and rapists.
Shabbychic
15-Nov-08, 14:29
Hitler persecuted INNOCENTS.....hardly the same. Correct me if i'm wrong but i thought we were talking about murderers, paedophiles and rapists.
I thought we were talking about the Death Penalty, not the torture of Human Beings, many of whom, after conviction, do turn out to be innocent.
hitler wis screwed up genetically...his faither wis his mithers uncle.
(no that 'ats got til do wi anything)
it seems fie 'e books that i read that most murderers or serial killers rether hev hed serious problems at home/school while growin up.
courts in 'iss country need til differentiate whether people are mentally ill before decidin if its a jail or a mental hospital these days, neverheed death row...
They should bring back the death penalty especially for Witches and Witchcraft.
ye hurt ma feelings golach
hitler wis screwed up genetically...his faither wis his mithers uncle.
Never kent he wiz fae Cairndhunna Tce ;)
cuddlepop
15-Nov-08, 19:48
They should bring back the death penalty especially for Witches and Witchcraft.
Golach that was cruel.:(
oldmarine
15-Nov-08, 20:52
Here in Arizona, we have a Sheriff in the Phoenix area who has a solution that doesn't require the death penalty. His solution is public humiliation to all crime doers. Old sheriff Joe dresses his prisoners in pink underwear, houses them in tents in the hot Arizona sun, and has then doing public work dressed in outlandish attire to be noticed by the public where ever they are working. When they are released they have no desire to returning to their old criminal habits. Of course, there are many citizens who decry this practice. However, old sheriff Joe gets re-elected over and over again. He has become quite popular.
Here in Arizona, we have a Sheriff in the Phoenix area who has a solution that doesn't require the death penalty. His solution is public humiliation to all crime doers. Old sheriff Joe dresses his prisoners in pink underwear, houses them in tents in the hot Arizona sun, and has then doing public work dressed in outlandish attire to be noticed by the public where ever they are working. When they are released they have no desire to returning to their old criminal habits. Of course, there are many citizens who decry this practice. However, old sheriff Joe gets re-elected over and over again. He has become quite popular.
OOOOPS I just saw a Pink Pig with Blue Spots fly past my window. He must be on the way to Arizona to join in.
Golach that was cruel.:(
Why do you consider my post as cruel, others in this thread want the death penalty, why should mine be considered any differently?
The answer can be nothing but NO, it should never be brought back.
It is in the psyche of all people, the belief that they will not get caught. So.........it does not deter committing murder or doing things that can lead to a death.
One innocent person put to death is one person too many.
The technology and forensics are getting better all the time but even now they get it wrong and how many people in the past have been put to death on very flimsy evidence.
Welcomefamily
16-Nov-08, 00:45
There are many occasions where there is conclusive evidence that cannot be challenged bring it back.
Again, that's why the government will never put this to a public vote. There's just too many reactionary idiots out there, unable to form a sensible opinion on this matter.
What of them? Kill them anyway because the jury 'got it wrong'? Kill the prosecution team because they 'got it wrong'?
Where does it end? Kill the police because they didn't catch them?
That's blame culture, I mean sicko's that have already said they did it like Baby P's carers.
That's blame culture, I mean sicko's that have already said they did it like Baby P's carers.What difference would it make killing them, in prison they wont be able to kill again. Hanging them just gives them an easy way out with not much suffering.
Metalattakk
16-Nov-08, 02:05
That's blame culture, I mean sicko's that have already said they did it like Baby P's carers.
Again, you're just letting your base instincts get the better of you.
What's wrong with locking them up for the rest of their lives? No parole, no letting them out for good behaviour. Just lock them up and throw away the key.
Don't let your desire for bloody vengeance rule your educated, civilised mind.
oldmarine
16-Nov-08, 03:26
The answer can be nothing but NO, it should never be brought back.
It is in the psyche of all people, the belief that they will not get caught. So.........it does not deter committing murder or doing things that can lead to a death.
One innocent person put to death is one person too many.
The technology and forensics are getting better all the time but even now they get it wrong and how many people in the past have been put to death on very flimsy evidence.
Jalna: Just suppose that so called 'innocent person" was not innocent and murdered one of your family. Would you still want to proterct that person?
Metalattakk
16-Nov-08, 05:05
Jalna: Just suppose that so called 'innocent person" was not innocent and murdered one of your family. Would you still want to proterct that person?
Choosing not to kill that person isn't the same as protecting him.
Killing people is barbaric, is it not? Would you accept being a hypocrite, just to satisfy your base instincts?
Never kent he wiz fae Cairndhunna Tce ;)
So true its our version of a trailer park!!!:lol: (Only joking to all that live there!)
Jalna: Just suppose that so called 'innocent person" was not innocent and murdered one of your family. Would you still want to proterct that person?
Of course you wouldnt want to protect someone who harmed someone you love but fortunately for us our justice system is not one based on revenge. It has to be more objective than that or all hell would break loose - there are people who would want the death penalty for stealing a car!
Lets however play your game oldmarine and ask " just suppose that guilty person who murdered your family member was not guilty after all - would you still be glad that person was dead?" Some say its a price we should be prepared to pay but lets imagine that the person wrongly accused and convicted of a crime was your son, daughter, husband, wife???? Evidence is over whelming but you are sure they are innocent but cant prove it.... You watch them as they are given the death penalty, they hang. Would you think it was a price worth paying then???
Why do you consider my post as cruel, others in this thread want the death penalty, why should mine be considered any differently?
i guess ye cana tell someone that kens it all already :roll:
i guess ye cana tell someone that kens it all already :roll:
Can you please explain 'at till me, I am owld, and get confused
i guess ye cana tell someone that kens it all already :roll:
thanks all who gave me guid rep ;)
So what's wrong with locking the garbage away for the rest of their lives instead?
why should they be taken care off?
if a dog even our own was to attack one off our or anyones kids or anyone for no reason he would be destroyed,not looked after!
folk that kill and prey on kids or anyone are no different in my eyes
hang em jab em chop their heads off i don't care how it's carried out either.
They should bring back the death penalty especially for Witches and Witchcraft.
you should move to nigeria with an attitude like that
Metalattakk
17-Nov-08, 15:04
why should they be taken care off?
I'm puzzled. How exactly would they be 'taken care of'? You mean held in a prison, in solitary, for the rest of their lives?
if a dog even our own was to attack one off our or anyones kids or anyone for no reason he would be destroyed,not looked after!
Yes, and that's what makes us different from animals - we can recognise the difference between human life and that of a dumb animal, and apportion appropriate values to them.
folk that kill and prey on kids or anyone are no different in my eyes
hang em jab em chop their heads off i don't care how it's carried out either.
An opinion sadly lacking any cognisance or the merest hint of humanity.
I agree with some of the other posters: the death penalty lowers our society to the level of those diabolical people who harm vulnerable adults/children.
Life should mean life though. No getting out in five years for good behaviour. And get them doing something useful to make some kind of reparation for what they have done, however small that is.
I am completely sickened with the news at the moment, to the point where I can't listen to it anymore.
We call ourselves a civilised country? What a joke. You can judge a society by how well it looks after its old and its young. Judge for yourselves................
Can you please explain 'at till me, I am owld, and get confused
ye mite be an auld burger...but yer no stupid! ;)
The "life should mean life" thing is a joke. Making life mean life wont make people stay longer in prison, it will just make judges give less "life" sentences.
At the moment the most serious offenders can be sentenced to a whole life tariff, but even that doesnt mean they will definately die in prison.
I think the system is fine. The system simply couldn't cope with every murderer being in prison till they die.
The "life should mean life" thing is a joke. Making life mean life wont make people stay longer in prison, it will just make judges give less "life" sentences.
At the moment the most serious offenders can be sentenced to a whole life tariff, but even that doesnt mean they will definately die in prison.
I think the system is fine. The system simply couldn't cope with every murderer being in prison till they die.
I don't agree. I don't mean it should apply to all life sentences but to those whose crimes are so heinous. Anything involving kids, whether it be paedophelia, or more serious violent crimes. If the system can't cope, change the system. I'm sick to the back teeth of living in a world where the most vulnerable's suffering is in the papers for a few days and forgotten. It's not revenge I seek: it's keeping these 'people' away from other innocent victims. I doubt that this type of behaviour is a 'mistake' or a 'one-off'. If you're that sick in the head, you're highly unlikely to suddenly see the light and change your behaviour. Where is the justice for those who cannot defend, or speak up for themselves? I understand that children will always die at the hands of psychos (one a week in the UK, I think are the statistics) but that doesn't mean you get a shorter sentence and get let out at a later date to live out the rest of your miserable life. These children should not be regarded as 'collateral damage' because of a system that doesn't work.
I don't agree. I don't mean it should apply to all life sentences but to those whose crimes are so heinous. Anything involving kids, whether it be paedophelia, or more serious violent crimes. If the system can't cope, change the system. I'm sick to the back teeth of living in a world where the most vulnerable's suffering is in the papers for a few days and forgotten. It's not revenge I seek: it's keeping these 'people' away from other innocent victims. I doubt that this type of behaviour is a 'mistake' or a 'one-off'. If you're that sick in the head, you're highly unlikely to suddenly see the light and change your behaviour. Where is the justice for those who cannot defend, or speak up for themselves? I understand that children will always die at the hands of psychos (one a week in the UK, I think are the statistics) but that doesn't mean you get a shorter sentence and get let out at a later date to live out the rest of your miserable life. These children should not be regarded as 'collateral damage' because of a system that doesn't work.
Loobyloo,
I agree that as disgusting as it is, we are always going to have children who sometimes "die at the hands of psychos." That unfortunately is life, but maybe one area into which the government should be pumping more money is into social services - better pay for social workers so as to get a better calibre of social worker and money to get more police officers in the field instead of getting through the paperwork in the office.
Also, people who end up as "psychos" as you put it often literally know of no other life than one where parents and peers are part of an underclass where unemployment, violence, brutality, drugs, faeces on the kitchen floor, frogs being anaesthetised and having all their bones broken and then being rescussitated to see the effects, etc., are the norm. I'm not condoning it and don't want to sound like I'm on a very snobbish high horse, but sometimes it's normal. How do you cure that? Poor Baby P, if he had survived, could well have grown into adulthood perpetrating the same crimes.
What is the answer? Corporal punishment is not the cure.
Ive just watched a documentary called The Executioners. It was a portrayal or people who press the buttons at an execution. I was fascinated by the scenes of executions. Sometimes I think capital punishment is barbaric but sometimes I think it could be justified.
Ian Huntley Moira brady Baby Ps lot. Other times when I consider the value of life I find it dirty.
Maybe once these people are sentenced to life, forever, they could be given an option of a portion of poison say in the first 2 years of their sentence. They do it themselves. At least they have a choice.
There are some horrific murders committed. Given the right publicity I think some kind of capital punishment could become a deterrant to certain kinds of murders. Assistant executioners could be chosen from the electoral role, a bit like jury selection, to assist at executions.
I would find it hard to do that so I guess I would vote against capital punishment.
thanks all who gave me guid rep ;)
I sent you some good Karma. Let me know if it works. :)
I sent you some good Karma. Let me know if it works. :)
i choost got an infraction point so....no really!! [lol]
thanks for tryin anyway ;)
No probs trix. Been there, done that.
What goes around, comes around - well at least in my experience :)
Whitewater
18-Nov-08, 01:04
I have stated my opinion earlier in this thread, and it is still the same. I have read through this with great interest. The one thing now that seems to me to cause a lot of trouble is the lack of discipline in the home and in the school (I know by law we can not now touch children), but I have always believed that if you havn't convinced a child of what is right or wrong by the time they have reached 5yrs old you never will, they go to school and they are not restrained through fear of punishment, they virtually do what they want. We are all in some way to blame for the violence of the youth in this country, they know they can't be touched so all the bounderies pushed and crossed, and we are too late to do anything about it. A lot of murders among the youth of today are perhaps not premeditated but the degree of violence used is the problem. When I was young, if you got into a fight and knocked your opponent over you waited until he got up before you continued. Now if you are unfortunate enough to be knocked over you are as good as dead, your head will be stamped on and crushed. Sadly it is a different world, in some ways perhaps better but as regards the application of the law I'm afraid it is not. However, having said that it does not account for the likes of Fred West and his type, they are obviously depraved people who get their kicks from murder and the like, but again it comes to the same thing, there is no deterrent, no fear of being caught. That is wrong. I have now been happily married for 38yrs and my wife has jokingly said that if she had killed me shortly after we got married she would have been free long ago to do her own thing. Sad, but true, unfortunately that is the way the world is now.
Steal something, you should get your hand chopped off; murder, you should be executed; rape, you should be castrated.
Simple solutions but we have no way of applying them.
excellent post whitewater....
choost when yer mentionin fred west. he wis raped an abused by lots o' members o' his family, includin members o' 'e opposite sex, rosemary also hed 'e exact same unfortunate upbringin.
'e chances o' them two meetin up is phenomenal....:eek:
excellent post whitewater....
choost when yer mentionin fred west. he wis raped an abused by lots o' members o' his family, includin members o' 'e opposite sex, rosemary also hed 'e exact same unfortunate upbringin.
'e chances o' them two meetin up is phenomenal....:eek:Why is it phenomenal, these miscreants can sniff each other out no probs.
Whitewater
18-Nov-08, 01:19
excellent post whitewater....
choost when yer mentionin fred west. he wis raped an abused by lots o' members o' his family, includin members o' 'e opposite sex, rosemary also hed 'e exact same unfortunate upbringin.
'e chances o' them two meetin up is phenomenal....:eek:
Thank you trix.
Why is it phenomenal, these miscreants can sniff each other out no probs.
i think because o' their upbringin they were both twisted nymphomaniacs, wi serious issues. for them til get tilgither wis always gona be disasterous.
perhaps if they hed never met, 'at part o' their personality wid o' bin deterred or repressed. they may hev gone on til lead normal lives, they may even hev got some kind o' help!
who knows, but on 'at fateful nite that they met......cards were marked.
rape, you should be castrated.
What if the rapist is female?
Whitewater
18-Nov-08, 01:37
What if the rapist is female?
Never thought of that, but I have never been that lucky. But to be serious, I'm not too sure what the answer would be. I know that in some African tribes and Arab countries they have a form of female circumcision where the colitoris is removed, thus depriving the female of any pleasure. Perhaps that would be the answer for female rapists.
Metalattakk
18-Nov-08, 02:27
Never thought of that, but I have never been that lucky. But to be serious, I'm not too sure what the answer would be. I know that in some African tribes and Arab countries they have a form of female circumcision where the colitoris is removed, thus depriving the female of any pleasure. Perhaps that would be the answer for female rapists.
Is this a candidate for 'Wind-up Of The Week'?
John McEnroe springs to mind...
I'm puzzled. How exactly would they be 'taken care of'? You mean held in a prison, in solitary, for the rest of their lives?
yes
Yes, and that's what makes us different from animals - we can recognise the difference between human life and that of a dumb animal, and apportion appropriate values to them.
for their crimes they are no better than dumb animals
An opinion sadly lacking any cognisance or the merest hint of humanity.
humanity for weirdos,sickos,nonces and killers i have no humanity towards any off this scum of our society,maybe you would like to take them in and care for them,look after their needs and mollycoddle them for their crimes and let them all know that no matter what they do they will be looked after by someone.
I don't know about the death penalty - but I think it abhorrent that the killers of baby P will be out eventually and able to have more children. I believe they should never be freed, but alas this will no doubt happen. They should all be sterilized at the very least, and never put in high security for their own protection. Let the other prisoners get at them, and if they are killed - it will be no loss to society and will save the tax payer a lot of money.
Metalattakk
20-Nov-08, 17:06
humanity for weirdos,sickos,nonces and killers i have no humanity towards any off this scum of our society,maybe you would like to take them in and care for them,look after their needs and mollycoddle them for their crimes and let them all know that no matter what they do they will be looked after by someone.
If you'd read this thread, you'd have seen and noted my stance. I do not advocate the 'molly-coddling' of murderers in any way, shape or form.
To suggest that because I believe these people should not be killed, somehow that implicates me as someone who 'would like to take them in and look after them' shows your opinion as asinine at best.
Now, where's that *shaking my head in disbelief* smiley gone to?
Again, you're just letting your base instincts get the better of you.
What's wrong with locking them up for the rest of their lives? No parole, no letting them out for good behaviour. Just lock them up and throw away the key.
Don't let your desire for bloody vengeance rule your educated, civilised mind.
so you want to lock em up throw away the key,i'm assuming you want them just to starve and rot away(sounds like a good way)
if not who feeds them houses them takes care of their medical needs.
you don't want em killed or looked after,you want to just hide them away,make up your mind
Now, where's that *shaking my head in disbelief* smiley gone to?
i can't find it either
Metalattakk
20-Nov-08, 17:29
Again router, you display a shockingly remarkable talent at displaying not a jot of humanity.
With opinions like yours on the go, thank goodness the Government for once seems to have its head screwed on.
Again router, you display a shockingly remarkable talent at displaying not a jot of humanity.
With opinions like yours on the go, thank goodness the Government for once seems to have its head screwed on.
like i said i don't have any humanity for killers and the rest that have come up on this thread,as for the government having their head screwed on[lol]
what planet are you on,you should join the borg-single minded and lost in space[lol]
Metalattakk
20-Nov-08, 17:54
/...as for the government having their head screwed on[lol]
what planet are you on,you should join the borg-single minded and lost in space[lol]
You really can't follow a discussion, can you?
Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth and punishment for those that commit the crime.
The russians have the right idea, found gulity of murder, walk into your cell and a bullet to the back of the head.
These men and women that kill others show no humanitarism towards there victims so why should we all feel sorry for them and let them live.
How to justify the lives of many for one life.
Ask the families of the murder victims who choose to watch the execution of the person who took the life of their family member if the death penalty should be removed, the answer would be no, they get what they deserve.
You really can't follow a discussion, can you?
now your just boring me[lol]
Metalattakk
20-Nov-08, 18:51
These men and women that kill others show no humanitarism towards there victims so why should we all feel sorry for them and let them live.
It's simply not a case of 'feeling sorry' for them.
It's about the belief that killing people is wrong. By actively seeking to kill these people, you are giving them the justification that killing people is not wrong.
So, Justine. Do you believe it is wrong to kill or not?
now your just boring me[lol]
If you can't give reason for your argument, then your argument holds no water. It then becomes no more than a weakly thought-out opinion, which is worthless.
It's simply not a case of 'feeling sorry' for them.
It's about the belief that killing people is wrong. By actively seeking to kill these people, you are giving them the justification that killing people is not wrong.
So, Justine. Do you believe it is wrong to kill or not?
If you can't give reason for your argument, then your argument holds no water. It then becomes no more than a weakly thought-out opinion, which is worthless.
but we have given reason for the argument,read the posts.
you won't change our minds so why bother.
all your reasoning is weak.
why shoould killers be allowed to take lives and live themselves why should the ones who prey on the innocent be allowed to walk amongst us why should we take care of monsters.
killing is wrong but when it comes to crimes such as murder the perps gave up their right to life for the life they have taken away or the lives they have destroyed.
like i said before this isn't just killing it's putting out the garbage of our society.
this is my reasoning and their will never be any words to change it,asinine or not.
kill em all [evil]
[quote=Metalattakk;460982]It's simply not a case of 'feeling sorry' for them.
It's about the belief that killing people is wrong. By actively seeking to kill these people, you are giving them the justification that killing people is not wrong.
So, Justine. Do you believe it is wrong to kill or not?
Killimg is wrong in the eyes of man, one of the ten commandments,but i have thoughts about the death of the guilty ones.
Would you agree that the likes of John Wayne Gacy, killed and tortured 33 men,Dennis neilson murdered and ate over 30 young men, ted bundy murdered 7 women convicted of one,Jeffry dalmer murdered 30 young men, tortured and murdered them and ate them. kept the bodies in his home in his bed for days, these type of people dont deserve to die, YES they do.They gave no thought to the people that they killed, so why should we as humans allow them a life when thats how they treated others.Anither one is the Ice Man, a convicted assasin who killed over 250 people for money in the 70's, he was allowed to make a tv programme about his crimes, where is it to stop.
Crime and punishment are a big part of my life, i know that many that were hung in britain in the early years were mainly for pettier crimes and did not really stand a chance, it was the norm for the convicted to be put to death, but in todays society crimes are much worse, more common and normaly not quick.
In the news today there are 2 lad who have just been given life sentences for kicking a 52 yr old guy to death, and what for their own pleasure, filmed it on their phones, now if you were to ask me what would be a good punishment for them, kick them about for an hour and see what its like,
but for the likes of the murders that callously kill over and over again there is no punishment that will stop them other than death.
many on death row have gone on to kill other inmates, there is no rehabilition for them even in the confines of a 6ft x 10 ft cell, so what do we do with them, keep them alive to kill as many other inmates as they feel right. No we let them have 20 more years than the victims and then finally put them to death.
So the answer is no killing is wrong, non human and intollerable, but when one man takes the life of another for his own gain then the line has been drawn and also im not a judge.
Metalattakk
20-Nov-08, 19:25
but we have given reason for the argument,read the posts.
you won't change our minds so why bother.
Because to stop would let you think that you are right, and you're not.
all your reasoning is weak.
No it's not. If it was, you'd be able to debunk it using your own arguments. But you can't.
why shoould killers be allowed to take lives and live themselves why should the ones who prey on the innocent be allowed to walk amongst us why should we take care of monsters.
No one is saying we have to let them walk amongst us. Why are you trying to twist things around to fit your flawed argument?
That's a rhetorical question, by the way.
killing is wrong but when it comes to crimes such as murder the perps gave up their right to life for the life they have taken away or the lives they have destroyed.
That's just your base desire for vengeance overspilling onto your keyboard. Vengeance should never be part of the judicial process. Punishment should.
like i said before this isn't just killing it's putting out the garbage of our society.
No, it is just killing for killing's sake.
One of my fundamental beliefs is that killing people is wrong. It seems that one of your fundamental beliefs is that it is not.
this is my reasoning and their will never be any words to change it,asinine or not.
I believe you are right, unfortunately...
kill em all [evil]
Your anger is wasted here. Again, there's no place for anger in the judicial processes.
Metalattakk
20-Nov-08, 19:38
They gave no thought to the people that they killed, so why should we as humans allow them a life when thats how they treated others.
Because we are civilised people who believe that killing is fundamentally wrong.
Lock them away for the rest of their lives. Anything more than that is just barbaric.
/..but for the likes of the murders that callously kill over and over again there is no punishment that will stop them other than death.
Of course there is. As I've said - lock them away, in solitary if required, for the rest of their lives.
So the answer is no killing is wrong, non human and intollerable, but when one man takes the life of another for his own gain then the line has been drawn and also im not a judge.
So you're happy to believe that killing people is inhumane and intolerable, yet you think it's the right answer to the problem?
How does that work?
like i said i don't have any humanity for killers and the rest that have come up on this thread,as for the government having their head screwed on[lol]
what planet are you on,you should join the borg-single minded and lost in space[lol]
Not much of an argument more of a single-minded rant which doesnt stay on the subject.
looks like Metal attak wins this one hands-down (was a forgone result really!!) [lol] Well done metal I doth my cap.
An eye for an eye will only make the world blind.
Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth and punishment for those that commit the crime.
The russians have the right idea, found gulity of murder...
there is usually 3 stories involved in a court room trial.
prosecution story, defence story.....an of course 'e truth.
'e truth is irrelevant in most cases, its who hes 'e best laywer!
'e point bein justine (an router), that sometimes innocent people go doon for crimes they didna commit....
we, as a civilised society, in 'e 21 century hes developed, evolved if ye lek til move on fie them times - for a reason!! too many innocent people hev died!!!
wur justice system is guid aye...so 'bloomin' brilliant that we can prove that sum'hen happened when it didna really...and that sum'hen didna happen, when it really did!!!
it sounds guid in theory aye, burn 'e brats, lethol injection, bring back public hangin for all ye sickos oot ayre...whatever, but in practice it is choost too barbaric in 'iss day an age.
we are a civilised nation, if we werna, hell, we'd be still burnin 'e witches :eek:
we are a civilised nation, if we werna, hell, we'd be still burnin 'e witches :eek:[/quote]
At would never do:)
we are a civilised nation, if we werna, hell, we'd be still burnin 'e witches
At would never do:)[/quote]
Will we only burn witches we dont agree with and keep the ones we do agree with or should we kill em all?[lol]
I like witches they are kinda cool(except grotbags she used to give me nightmares :lol:). Many a witch has put a spell on me,but luckily i now have my own personal witch who has me spellbound!!!
There are some very sick people on this earth, some abused and neglected themselves, mentally ill, depraved and down right evil.
The question is do we, the supposedly well adjusted and caring in society - from decent backgrounds, having known love and kindness and being in possession of healthy minds need to see murderers murdered in order to satisfy a need for revenge.
The death penalty won’t deter the criminally depraved amongst us. It won’t solve the problems in society.
I am at a complete loss as to why anyone of sound mind would desire to see the death of another human being. Anger, even hatred is understandable but to actively want them dead? How does that differ from the murderer who desired his victim dead?
We can’t change who they are or what they did. Locking them up and providing the means for a basic existence is the civilised thing to do. The alternative makes us no better than them, imo.
That's just your base desire for vengeance overspilling onto your keyboard. Vengeance should never be part of the judicial process. Punishment should.
Vengeance is not his to seek though Metalattakk.
Not much of an argument more of a single-minded rant which doesnt stay on the subject.
looks like Metal attak wins this one hands-down (was a forgone result really!!) [lol] Well done metal I doth my cap.
An eye for an eye will only make the world blind.Most people have two eyes, Hotrod.;)
At would never do:)
Will we only burn witches we dont agree with and keep the ones we do agree with or should we kill em all?[lol]
I like witches they are kinda cool(except grotbags she used to give me nightmares :lol:). Many a witch has put a spell on me,but luckily i now have my own personal witch who has me spellbound!!![/QUOTE]
Yeah, she was creepy as............. Good old Grotbags. That's one actress who never worked again.
Because we are civilised people who believe that killing is fundamentally wrong.
Lock them away for the rest of their lives. Anything more than that is just barbaric.
Of course there is. As I've said - lock them away, in solitary if required, for the rest of their lives.
So you're happy to believe that killing people is inhumane and intolerable, yet you think it's the right answer to the problem?
How does that work?
Hve to agree to certain extent, we can't kill for the sake of it.
Vengeance is not his to seek though Metalattakk.
Most people have two eyes, Hotrod.;)
But there is no "I" in team!!![lol]
Killimg is wrong in the eyes of man, one of the ten commandments,but i have thoughts about the death of the guilty ones.
Would you agree that the likes of John Wayne Gacy, killed and tortured 33 men,Dennis neilson murdered and ate over 30 young men, ted bundy murdered 7 women convicted of one,Jeffry dalmer murdered 30 young men, tortured and murdered them and ate them. kept the bodies in his home in his bed for days, these type of people dont deserve to die, YES they do.They gave no thought to the people that they killed, so why should we as humans allow them a life when thats how they treated others.
The whole point is that these people have committed extreme atrocities but for a society to kill in retaliation is to bring the whole of that society down to their level. That people can commit these acts makes us wonder what has happened to our society. That ordinary people on the org can have such bloodthirsty knee-jerk reactions makes me wonder just as much what is happening in our society.
I've read of several instances where families of murder victims have found it in their hearts to forgive the murderer. I don’t know if I could do that, but I believe forgiveness to be the only way to set yourself free. I’m not a Christian or even a believer in any faith, but I believe that.
Someone said (can’t remember who) that the best revenge is to live well. Think about it.
a humane death is too good for them. Let them fester in a cell - but please make it for the rest of their miserable lives. the only problem with keeping them alive is the burden on the tax payer.
Personally, however angry I may feel, and if it was a member of my family I doubt if i could ever find it in my heart to forgive, I could NEVER be the one to pull that switch, or administer that injection. How many of those who are for the death penalty could actually administer the final dose themselves?
Haweswater
28-Nov-08, 23:26
I've just caught up with this thread. I am strongly opposed to capital punishment which is effectively a society's revenge against a person who commits the unquestionably evil act of murder.
Nothing has been gained from taking the life of a killer. Many will tell you that society was safer when we had the death penalty. That is a myth.
Hanging murderers never actually deterred determined killers, or even those who were more opportunistic, such as the gun carrying bank robber.
During the Victorian era, when judicial hanging was commonplace, the crime rate per head of capita was actually far higher than it is today.
Did hanging deter criminals? No. It never has done.
Names like Derek Bentley and Timothy Evans spring to mind, not to mention the Guildford Four, Birmingham Six and so on.
As for the frequent quotes of "an eye for an eye", here again the supporters of capital punishment, whilst happily quoting the Old Testament (Leviticus 24: 19-21) tend to overlook the words of Jesus Christ who said: " You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." (St. Matthew 5: 38).
Taking the life of even a guilty individual is to bring society down to the level at which he/she (the killer) was at when they committed murder. It may make us feel good, but that in itself is not necessarily morally right.
If the world were to adopt the merest drop of the spirit of forgiveness then the world might well become a safer place.
In many senses we are all responsible for crime in society - after all, we are happy to silently condone and encourage the culture of hedonism and greed and, provided we sit on the right side of the chasm, widen the gulf between rich and poor. We have no guilt when we allow our children to play computer games that glamorise violence, we create demons out of those who are different from us - or from within whose cultures there may lurk violent fanatics - which, in turn, breeds resentment and hatred.
"If we poison our children with hatred then, the hard life is all that they'll know..." (with apologies to that great singer Nanci Griffith).
Society needs to work hard for peace and justice. It's just that some prefer the easier option...
An eye for an eye will only make the world blind.
How shocking is this! An Eye for an Eye, Iranian style.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1089629/Jealous-lover-blinded-woman-acid-blinded-acid-Iranian-court-rules.html
How shocking is this! An Eye for an Eye, Iranian style.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1089629/Jealous-lover-blinded-woman-acid-blinded-acid-Iranian-court-rules.htmlPretty sick through our eyes but they are a different culture, who are we to judge?
Pretty sick through our eyes but they are a different culture, who are we to judge?
Not saying we should judge (although to be honest I do judge - I think they are very misguided), I'm just saying it is not our culture and for us it must be wrong. Some Orgers on this thread are asking for an eye for an eye. But I remember some months back a thread where Orgers were in full cry against the possibility of Sharia law being introduced here.
Not saying we should judge (although to be honest I do judge - I think they are very misguided), I'm just saying it is not our culture and for us it must be wrong. Some Orgers on this thread are asking for an eye for an eye. But I remember some months back a thread where Orgers were in full cry against the possibility of Sharia law being introduced here.In your opinion and mine they are misguided but, they have their laws and we have ours. The point is, we are little better in this country when so many are asking for a return to the death penalty but can pontificate about what other countries do without even thinking for a moment about how contradictory they are being.
Sharia law has absolutely no place in this country and if it comes to pass it will be a huge travesty to this country seeing as how we have evolved as a society over a few hundred years.
In your opinion and mine they are misguided but, they have their laws and we have ours. The point is, we are little better in this country when so many are asking for a return to the death penalty but can pontificate about what other countries do without even thinking for a moment about how contradictory they are being.
Sharia law has absolutely no place in this country and if it comes to pass it will be a huge travesty to this country seeing as how we have evolved as a society over a few hundred years.
Absolutely. (I love being able to agree with people.)
PS: What are the two theories about arguing with women where neither works?
Absolutely. (I love being able to agree with people.)
PS: What are the two theories about arguing with women where neither works?
1. The theory that being honest will work, women never believe and always think there is an ulterior motive.
2. The theory that your wallet is a bottomless pit, that's a misconception also.
1. The theory that being honest will work, women never believe and always think there is an ulterior motive.
2. The theory that your wallet is a bottomless pit, that's a misconception also.
Harsh words TBH. :)
Theories about arguing with men are:
1. Man is always right (even if the Trivial Pursuit card gives a different answer, the man is still right)
2. Man always wants to split everything fairly straight down the middle - 75% to him and 25% to the woman.
But we digress.
mm1ii2aa3
30-Nov-08, 04:18
I'm with you Tilter - some stories I read about contain unimaginable cruelty and I think those people have no right to live. but then death is perhaps too good for them as well because they would be absolved of their guilt (if they felt it) and they should be made to suffer in life.
There is definitely a lack of deterrent for crime these days - prisons are more like hotels due to the human rights act.
Then we get to the cost of keeping criminals - how many other wonderful things could that money be spent on.
I really don't have any answers on this one but I do think that the death penalty is very hard to regulate and guilt in some cases very hard to prove. As you say - the thought of one innocent person dying is enough to make me say "no".
Perhaps a harder prison system like Death Row but without the end result would be a happy medium. A lot of prisoners in the US are kept for many years before they are executed. Life meaning life and not "12 years but out in 6 if you are good" - might also help...
you have said all that i like to say!!!!!!!!!
Pure & simple - yes. I for one am sick of our kids being murdered, abused etc. It's black & white for me and is MY opinion on the matter.
Totally agree.
eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth.....or do ye turn 'e ither cheek?
what if 'e man ye sentenced til deith turns oot til be innocent?
'at means yer a killer. should we hang ye too then?
How shocking is this! An Eye for an Eye, Iranian style.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1089629/Jealous-lover-blinded-woman-acid-blinded-acid-Iranian-court-rules.html
Im not sure if that is a solely Iranian thing, isnt it the general muslim "answer" ?
Reading through most of the comments on this thread I seem to get the feeling that most people believe that although perhaps social behaviour has worsened the death penalty plays no role in a civilised society. It is somewhat disconcerting to see that the polls have shown that currently 60% of people want the death penalty to return to the UK. I don't think some people quite understand the concept of capital punishment. In essence the state kills people because they have broken the law - this is completely ridiculous as many people commit crime in the first place through extreme desperation or because they have become 'lost' in life. Of course this is no excuse for crime but as a society we must play a role in trying to prevent this happening not merely eliminate people that do not follow the law.
Like with any issue I believe that in order to solve a problem one must try to prevent the situation arising in the first instance not only take action once it has happened.
perhaps if we, as children were brought up til respect 'e auld pagan ways.....then we would be more a civilised nation.
maybe we should hev focused on 'e work o' 'e druids at 'e school instead o' 'e government expectin people til grow up believin in adam an eve, noah an his ark...blah blah blah :roll:
maybe then people would hev more respect for 'life' an be less likely til stick a knife in someones back, or take a gun til somebodies heid.
'e fear o' goin til hell for eternity hesna worked so maybe government should abort 'e whole biblical concept, admit that it wis made up, an take things right back intil 'e 21st century by focusin on 'e aulden ways - way before 'e jewish guy wis takin intil 'e light.
its certainally a more believable concept....
murderers ken its no true aboot goin til heaven or hell an they hev bin left wi a huge gap in their moral mentality....
so therefore, in ma (very strong) opinion, its 'e fault o' 'e government :Razz
If only it wiz at simple trix I wid vote for it.
We have till make do with what we have and work within those constraints.
People will always be people and I suspect Druids would have terrorist atrocities to contend with too.
There's been such high profile cases recently, where I honestly think I could be part of the hanging party. If it made my family safer i would probably vote for it.
When I'm at it. I think some form of Sharia law, incorporated with Scottish law would do a lot for the crime rate and at the same time allow a sizeable minority of british citizens an opportunity to feel truly British.
perhaps if we, as children were brought up til respect 'e auld pagan ways.....then we would be more a civilised nation.
maybe we should hev focused on 'e work o' 'e druids at 'e school instead o' 'e government expectin people til grow up believin in adam an eve, noah an his ark...blah blah blah :roll:
maybe then people would hev more respect for 'life' an be less likely til stick a knife in someones back, or take a gun til somebodies heid.
'e fear o' goin til hell for eternity hesna worked so maybe government should abort 'e whole biblical concept, admit that it wis made up, an take things right back intil 'e 21st century by focusin on 'e aulden ways - way before 'e jewish guy wis takin intil 'e light.
its certainally a more believable concept....
murderers ken its no true aboot goin til heaven or hell an they hev bin left wi a huge gap in their moral mentality....
so therefore, in ma (very strong) opinion, its 'e fault o' 'e government :Razz
What a load of codswallop!!! The Government does not make anyone worship the Christian Faith. There are many religions in the World, even Druids are considered a religion.
You cannot blame the Government for shootings and stabbings in the UK today, that in my opinion is the fault of society and the do gooders, who do not allow parents to teach their children respect for other human beings, or even animals, or property.
Many of the hardened criminals of today, are probably not even religious, not the Governments fault. Its the Society that made the World today. Were those murderers in Mumbai religious fanatics, or just anti India, or even anti the west? We will never know.
The Druids maybe took life back on the "Owld days" who knows? Many of the old religions committed human sacrifices long before Christianity landed on Iona.
If only it wiz at simple trix I wid vote for it.
We have till make do with what we have and work within those constraints.
People will always be people and I suspect Druids would have terrorist atrocities to contend with too.
There's been such high profile cases recently, where I honestly think I could be part of the hanging party. If it made my family safer i would probably vote for it.
When I'm at it. I think some form of Sharia law, incorporated with Scottish law would do a lot for the crime rate and at the same time allow a sizeable minority of british citizens an opportunity to feel truly British.How exactly are a minority going to be made to feel British by the introduction of Sharia law which has sod all to do with being British? It will do nothing more than increase tensions that are already at breaking point.
What a load of codswallop!!!
in yer opinion golach :roll:
The Government does not make anyone worship the Christian Faith.
but they fully support and encourage the christian faith....who makes up 'e education curriculum?
There are many religions in the World, even Druids are considered a religion.
am speakin aboot britian as a nation....no arguin that 'e druids were a religion.
You cannot blame the Government for shootings and stabbings in the UK today, that in my opinion is the fault of society and the do gooders, who do not allow parents to teach their children respect for other human beings, or even animals, or property.
i do blame 'e government. who is runnin 'iss country?
society today hes been left high an dry wi nothin but fairytales til base wur whole existence on.
no wonder people hev rebelled.
how can people take 'e government serious? one minute they runnin 'e country, dealin wi war, national health etc, next they are speakin aboot jesus christ (an 'e invisible 'man') i mean....:confused
Many of the hardened criminals of today, are probably not even religious, not the Governments fault. Its the Society that made the World today. Were those murderers in Mumbai religious fanatics, or just anti India, or even anti the west? We will never know.
ma point bein that if we werna brainwashed fie an early age we maybe widna find 'e government so patronising.
The Druids maybe took life back on the "Owld days" who knows?
a concept made up by pope innocent late 1400's to 'control' peoples thoughts! backfired tho...now some members o' 'e public actually believe 'iss utter nonsense and begin til worship 'e devil. this is where 'e 'sacrifices' that ye speak o' comes fie.
Many of the old religions committed human sacrifices long before Christianity landed on Iona .
aye? do ye hev proof aboot 'at or is at anither one o' yer 'opinions' :roll:
What a load of codswallop!!! The Government does not make anyone worship the Christian Faith. There are many religions in the World, even Druids are considered a religion.
You cannot blame the Government for shootings and stabbings in the UK today, that in my opinion is the fault of society and the do gooders, who do not allow parents to teach their children respect for other human beings, or even animals, or property.
Many of the hardened criminals of today, are probably not even religious, not the Governments fault. Its the Society that made the World today. Were those murderers in Mumbai religious fanatics, or just anti India, or even anti the west? We will never know.
The Druids maybe took life back on the "Owld days" who knows? Many of the old religions committed human sacrifices long before Christianity landed on Iona.
i totally agree.
To blame the government is a cop out. too many people look to blame other folk for the actions of murderers, be it from past abusers, the government, bad parenting... but the majority of the time it is just that person that can take responsibility for the crime they have commited.
How exactly are a minority going to be made to feel British by the introduction of Sharia law which has sod all to do with being British? It will do nothing more than increase tensions that are already at breaking point.
That's one of the problems with being British in a multi cultural society. An inability to accept change.
Whats wrong with discussing options to improve our broken society even if some of those options may seem alien to us as British people?
That's one of the problems with being British in a multi cultural society. An inability to accept change.
Whats wrong with discussing options to improve our broken society even if some of those options may seem alien to us as British people?How will the introduction of Sharia law help Muslims feel more British?
How will the introduction of Sharia law help Muslims feel more British?
Racial tensions have eased over the years but i believe it's roots still lurk below the surface in modern day Britain. Its called institutionalised racism by some.
There are still tensions between white British culture and Asian British cultures.
Theres something powerful about Sharia law and Britain needs some kind of law reform to halt the ever increasing crime rate.
2 birds with one stone. The Brits get a law system that may well reduce the crime rate and the British Asians get recognition as being a part of a real multicultural society.
Racial tensions have eased over the years but i believe it's roots still lurk below the surface in modern day Britain. Its called institutionalised racism by some.
There are still tensions between white British culture and Asian British cultures.
Theres something powerful about Sharia law and Britain needs some kind of law reform to halt the ever increasing crime rate.
2 birds with one stone. The Brits get a law system that may well reduce the crime rate and the British Asians get recognition as being a part of a real multicultural society.
There's also something scary about sharia law but which parts would you be willing for our legal system to adopt assuming that you are not meaning the adoption of aspects of their laws which we left behind in biblical times.
Strictly speaking Sharia law is based on holy book morality and in that sense is certainly scary. I would have no truck with amputations and executions and womens rights would be unnaffected.
The birch would be a fair start and used in conjunction with a major programme of awareness aimed at everyone but in particular younger people who are showing signs of anti social behaviour at an early age.
That's the real problem with many Anglo Saxon British people. They see their whiteness as the norm. They have no understanding of other cultures nor the injustices suffered by those cultures.
I know it takes 2 to tango though
aye? do ye hev proof aboot 'at or is at anither one o' yer 'opinions' :roll:
I just googled Druid+human sacrifice, and many others, far more educated and open minded than I have written about the druids, again in my opinion the Druids were as bad as any others, they were no innocents
http://www.bilderberg.org/sacrific.htm
Strictly speaking Sharia law is based on holy book morality and in that sense is certainly scary. I would have no truck with amputations and executions and womens rights would be unnaffected.
The birch would be a fair start and used in conjunction with a major programme of awareness aimed at everyone but in particular younger people who are showing signs of anti social behaviour at an early age.
That's the real problem with many Anglo Saxon British people. They see their whiteness as the norm. They have no understanding of other cultures nor the injustices suffered by those cultures.
I know it takes 2 to tango thoughThen the cry will go out, "we want more, why should we not be able to live by our own laws". so where do we stop? Perhaps we should designate Bradford as an Islamic republic?
As for the birch, we wouldn't need to look further than the Isle of Man for some anecdotal evidence as to it's merits and successes.
That's one of the problems with being British in a multi cultural society. An inability to accept change.
Then the cry will go out, "we want more, why should we not be able to live by our own laws". so where do we stop? Perhaps we should designate Bradford as an Islamic republic?
The only way the human race will survive is to work together.
Interestingly there's a marked majority would like to see the return of capital punishment. Maybe if we called it druids law or Pictish law it may be more acceptable to some.
Strictly speaking Sharia law is based on holy book morality and in that sense is certainly scary.......
What is "holy book morality"?
I was brought up to respect my fellow human being. Pretty basic stuff, respect for your neighbour or the person standing next to you in the queue at the supermarket, train station etc.
I've not been brainwashed in any way. I am not a Druid nor am I acquaint with Sharia law. I'm not of a mind to study either in any great depth either.
Oh, I should say I don't believe in the Death Penalty.
The only way the human race will survive is to work together.
Interestingly there's a marked majority would like to see the return of capital punishment. Maybe if we called it druids law or Pictish law it may be more acceptable to some.
Even with the small poll on here very few are willing to step up to the plate so to speak and give their views on why they think murder is the solution to murder.
What is "holy book morality"?
I was brought up to respect my fellow human being. Pretty basic stuff, respect for your neighbour or the person standing next to you in the queue at the supermarket, train station etc.
I've not been brainwashed in any way. I am not a Druid nor am I acquaint with Sharia law. I'm not of a mind to study either in any great depth either.
Oh, I should say I don't believe in the Death Penalty.If Islamic law was to be adopted here then it would be wise to study it so you know the beast you will be fighting against.
If Islamic law was to be adopted here ....
Ah, the great "If". From my experience the wheels in the great corridors of power grind slowly along. I'm confident I'll be able to catch up quite quickly if needbe.
Ah, the great "If". From my experience the wheels in the great corridors of power grind slowly along. I'm confident I'll be able to catch up quite quickly if needbe.If ifs were buts and blah, blah, blah, the thing is it could happen and Gleeber is quite happy for it to do so. How many like-minded people does it take to cause change?
If ifs were buts and blah, blah, blah, the thing is it could happen and Gleeber is quite happy for it to do so. How many like-minded people does it take to cause change?
Indeed TBH - conversely, if buts were ifs blah, blah, blah, the thing is it could happen, whatever "it" is. Gleeber can answer for himself. How many like-minded people do you think it takes to cause change?
Indeed TBH - conversely, if buts were ifs blah, blah, blah, the thing is it could happen, whatever "it" is. Gleeber can answer for himself. How many like-minded people do you think it takes to cause change?Yes, Gleeber is quite capable.
How many? According to Margaret Mead, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."
Ah good, you've acknowledged the fact that Gleeber is quite capable of speaking for himself.
You've totally missed my point however. I was asking for your opinion, not Margaret Mead's. Do you have an opinion? If so, what is it?
Ah good, you've acknowledged the fact that Gleeber is quite capable of speaking for himself.
You've totally missed my point however. I was asking for your opinion, not Margaret Mead's. Do you have an opinion? If so, what is it?I have never doubted that Gleeber could answer for himself, why has that has entered into the conversation.
I thought Margaret Mead's quote was relevant to the fact that muslims are a minority in Britain yet in my opinion there will be some form of Sharia law adopted by the British legal system, the minority will bring about change.
Margaret Mead also believed that cultural patterns of racism, warfare, and environmental exploitation were learned, and that the members of a society could work together to modify their traditions and to construct new institutions. (googled)
The individual, when stripped to the bone, is little more than an animal with attitude. The world will only change when an individual changes.
What exactly bothers you about a little bit of Sharia law and an allignment with Islam?
PS Dont run away with the idea that I'm happy with change. Like most people I can feel threatened with change. However sometimes somethings need fixed.
mm1ii2aa3
02-Dec-08, 23:46
:~(i just hope there are some strict penalties that will help reducing the crimes. there are some penalties that will stop the prisoners commiting the same crimes again when they are released from the jail
Margaret Mead also believed that cultural patterns of racism, warfare, and environmental exploitation were learned, and that the members of a society could work together to modify their traditions and to construct new institutions. (googled)
The individual, when stripped to the bone, is little more than an animal with attitude. The world will only change when an individual changes. We don't live in the idealistic world of Margaret mead or Ghandi so being the change that you want to see in the world won't make any difference unless you can change human nature as a whole.
What exactly bothers you about a little bit of Sharia law and an allignment with Islam?
PS Dont run away with the idea that I'm happy with change. Like most people I can feel threatened with change. However sometimes somethings need fixed.That depends on which aspects of sharia law you would like to see adopted by our legal systems, laws that will help deter crime in the United Kingdom.
I dont think that kind of social science is idealistic. Maybe some of it is but the idea that we could have more control over what we believe is not new. Someone said they wer'nt brainwashed but the truth is we are to some extent. For most of us it's a pleasant enough experience but not for everybody. Some people will die for what they believe and others you couldna believe as far as you could throw them.
I used to think capital punishment was horrible and dirty but now I think its only dirty. That chap on the news yesterday who killed Vicki Hamilton 25 years ago. Hes a monster. Let the families decide. Theres a bit of Sharia law I might like to see in Scotland.
I have never doubted that Gleeber could answer for himself, why has that has entered into the conversation......
You quoted Gleeber a few posts back, that's why.
I also often wonder why exactly you question so many opinions here whilst not being exactly forthcoming about your own. :D
You quoted Gleeber a few posts back, that's why.
I also often wonder why exactly you question so many opinions here whilst not being exactly forthcoming about your own. :DMy opinion on the death penalty is obvious.
My opinion on the death penalty is obvious.
It sure is to me TBH! :)
My opinion on the death penalty is obvious.
Your opinion on capital punishment is not obvious. I know you abhor the idea (me too) and I know you call it state sponsered murder (like me). I know your against the idea, (like me as long as it's not a member of my family) but would you reconsider your opinion under any circumstances?
It's actually a pointless question because I know what your answer will be. Some of us have cast in stone beliefs and it's not until those beliefs are seriously challenged by events that our true feelings are likely to be exposed.
No need to answer then unless your likely to surprise me.
i would like to say if there was death penalty for monster Peter Tobin when he was first time charged, then he would not have a chance of taking more women's lives after he was released from jail.
Metalattakk
04-Dec-08, 18:29
i would like to say if there was death penalty for monster Peter Tobin when he was first time charged, then he would not have a chance of taking more women's lives after he was released from jail.
Neither would he if he had been locked up for life, with no chance of release.
oldmarine
05-Dec-08, 01:07
Neither would he if he had been locked up for life, with no chance of release.
Either way would have worked.
Metalattakk
05-Dec-08, 01:12
Yes, but only one way advocates and justifies the killing of people. Only one way is a barbaric knee-jerk reaction. Only one way is pandering to the base instincts of no more than outraged animals.
Only one way is wrong in a modern, intelligent and enlightened society.
Yes, but only one way advocates and justifies the killing of people. Only one way is a barbaric knee-jerk reaction. Only one way is pandering to the base instincts of no more than outraged animals.
Only one way is wrong in a modern, intelligent and enlightened society.
There's a couple of interesting points in your stance MA You seem to be under the impression that you have some high moral advantage over people who would advocate the death penalty. Your also under the impression that capital punishment feeds some deep base instinct in human beings.What exactly are you alluding to? And of course you claim people who disagree with you are wrong. Very interesting.
You further claim to be part of some inteligent and enlightened society. I would say the jury is out on that one but if that's the case the figures from the org poll would confirm that most people who voted would disagree with your opinion.
How do you answer the charge that perhaps your opinion is under serious challenge? Or would those people who voted yes be less educated and enlightened than you?
Is it possible that a modern and enlightened society could advocate and justify the judicial killing of people who have terrorised others and in particular vulnerable people?
I am beginning to consider it may not only be right but also necessary in a modern society. Ive not been convinced by any of your arguments and would further suggest that your argument is half baked because in the right circumstances your opinion on the death penalty could well change, especially if you were personally affected.
Mine is in flux and I have had to seriously reconsider my stance because of some recent horrific murders and some disgusting murderers. I'm very comfortable with my change of thought though and look forward to its natural conclusion.
PS. Dont expect an early response from me if you have any more enlightened and educated opinions. I'm off for the weekend.
Metalattakk
05-Dec-08, 13:11
There's a couple of interesting points in your stance MA You seem to be under the impression that you have some high moral advantage over people who would advocate the death penalty. Your also under the impression that capital punishment feeds some deep base instinct in human beings.What exactly are you alluding to?
It really is quite simple: If you believe that killing people is wrong, you cannot possibly advocate the killing of people, surely?
And of course you claim people who disagree with you are wrong. Very interesting.
But they are wrong - see my last point.
You further claim to be part of some inteligent and enlightened society. I would say the jury is out on that one but if that's the case the figures from the org poll would confirm that most people who voted would disagree with your opinion.
OK, two things to point out:
1. We may not live within an entirely intelligent, enlightened and civilised society, but surely that is something to aim for?
2. Internet polls are hardly the best source of statistics. It's way too easy to just click the "Kill 'Em All" button without really thinking too much about the consequences and ramifications of the end result.
How do you answer the charge that perhaps your opinion is under serious challenge? Or would those people who voted yes be less educated and enlightened than you?
My opinion is not under any challenge at all. I am convinced I am correct to hold my opinion that taking a life - any life - is fundamentally wrong.
The people who voted 'Yes' just maybe haven't thought about the issue too deeply, seeing as hardly any of them posted a cogitative reason for their vote.
Is it possible that a modern and enlightened society could advocate and justify the judicial killing of people who have terrorised others and in particular vulnerable people?
I am beginning to consider it may not only be right but also necessary in a modern society. Ive not been convinced by any of your arguments and would further suggest that your argument is half baked because in the right circumstances your opinion on the death penalty could well change, especially if you were personally affected.
As could yours of course, if someone close to you were wrongly convicted of murder.
As they strap your brother or son into the chair, about to ride the lightning, would your opinion still be the same? As everything fades to black, would your brother or son's last thought be 'Gee, I'm glad gleeber voted for the death penalty...'?
Of course anyone's opinion would change in either situation, but the crucial thing is we don't make the rules up on just a few cases - that just loads the question on one side. This is why the government won't let us have a vote on it - we can't be trusted not to just vote for media-driven bloody vengeance. They don't trust us to put enough thought into our decision - and rightly so in my opinion.
Mine is in flux and I have had to seriously reconsider my stance because of some recent horrific murders and some disgusting murderers. I'm very comfortable with my change of thought though and look forward to its natural conclusion.
OK, one last question for you:
What exactly is wrong with locking these people up for the rest of their natural lives, never to be released? Why must they be killed?
PS. Dont expect an early response from me if you have any more enlightened and educated opinions. I'm off for the weekend.
Have a good weekend off. :)
Neither would he if he had been locked up for life, with no chance of release.
lock up someone like monster Peter Tobin for life, it only means wasting more taxpayer's money to feed him and look after him in jail!
MA.it seems pretty clear you are against the death penalty for the evil sinners of this world, i was wondering if you also believe that the countries that have the death penalty should stop.Should they abolish the death penalty in other countries aswell.
In many countries the punishments seem harsh for the crimes, eg theft in egypt, you loose your hands, rape in afganistan is death, so killing murders seems quite relaxed to me.Women who have affairs in afghanistan are stoned to death, so where is it wrong to kill those who kill.[disgust]
Metalattakk
05-Dec-08, 14:35
MA.it seems pretty clear you are against the death penalty for the evil sinners of this world, i was wondering if you also believe that the countries that have the death penalty should stop.Should they abolish the death penalty in other countries aswell.
In many countries the punishments seem harsh for the crimes, eg theft in egypt, you loose your hands, rape in afganistan is death, so killing murders seems quite relaxed to me.Women who have affairs in afghanistan are stoned to death, so where is it wrong to kill those who kill.[disgust]
I simply believe it's fundamentally wrong to kill people. So, going by that logic I also believe that these countries should stop using capital punishment.
However, I also don't think we have any right to demand they do so.
Metalattakk
05-Dec-08, 14:38
lock up someone like monster Peter Tobin for life, it only means wasting more taxpayer's money to feed him and look after him in jail!
Executing him will cost how much? How much will the endless appeals, counter-appeals, court fees, lawyer's fees (all on legal aid most likely) cost the tax-payer?
As is seen in the US, these fees often outweigh the cost of imprisoning them for life.
[quote=Metalattakk;466952]I simply believe it's fundamentally wrong to kill people. So, going by that logic I also believe that these countries should stop using capital punishment.
However, I also don't think we have any right to demand they do so.[/quote
as with all humans we all should believe killing is wrong, and most of us would not think about doing such an act, but its hard not to go for the eye for an eye theory on this.
Britain will never bring back the ultimate punishment simply because it is deemed as barbaric to kill another human being, but for those who choose to deliberately take another persons life it seems to weigh up the rights and the wrongs of the debate.IMO.
Executing him will cost how much?
i dont think that is even an issue for the victims relatives.(although i know this is in reply to another post)
This is not about money, but about the only sense of justice a person who has lost a loved will feel.
if you murder an innocent person, you should pay by having to pay the same price as your victim did... you life.
Metalattakk
05-Dec-08, 15:01
i dont think that is even an issue for the victims relatives.(although i know this is in reply to another post)
This is not about money, but about the only sense of justice a person who has lost a loved will feel.
if you murder an innocent person, you should pay by having to pay the same price as your victim did... you life.
OK, so if you were on the jury that wrongfully convicted someone of murder, then you should be murdered too?
Gandhi has it right, you know...
Edit: And it's should have nothing to do with revenge on behalf of the victim's family. It's all to do with society as a whole.
OK, so if you were on the jury that wrongfully convicted someone of murder, then you should be murdered too?
Gandhi has it right, you know...
Edit: And it's should have nothing to do with revenge on behalf of the victim's family. It's all to do with society as a whole.
its not revenge, its justice, in a lot of peoples opinion - mine included..
and no, i wouldnt be a murderer as part of the jury... if you want to go that way.. you could just say the defendant IF GUILTY commited suicide the same time s/he commited a murder...
[quote=Metalattakk;466952]I simply believe it's fundamentally wrong to kill people. So, going by that logic I also believe that these countries should stop using capital punishment.
However, I also don't think we have any right to demand they do so.[/quote
as with all humans we all should believe killing is wrong, and most of us would not think about doing such an act, but its hard not to go for the eye for an eye theory on this.
Britain will never bring back the ultimate punishment simply because it is deemed as barbaric to kill another human being, but for those who choose to deliberately take another persons life it seems to weigh up the rights and the wrongs of the debate.IMO.Why would you opt for an ""eye for an eye" when you are not directly affected by a murder? Is there some blood-lust lurking in your psyche that is perhaps a remnant from our not so distant history of attending public executions soley for our entertainment pleasure.
oldmarine
06-Dec-08, 03:07
There's a couple of interesting points in your stance MA You seem to be under the impression that you have some high moral advantage over people who would advocate the death penalty. Your also under the impression that capital punishment feeds some deep base instinct in human beings.What exactly are you alluding to? And of course you claim people who disagree with you are wrong. Very interesting.
You further claim to be part of some inteligent and enlightened society. I would say the jury is out on that one but if that's the case the figures from the org poll would confirm that most people who voted would disagree with your opinion.
How do you answer the charge that perhaps your opinion is under serious challenge? Or would those people who voted yes be less educated and enlightened than you?
Is it possible that a modern and enlightened society could advocate and justify the judicial killing of people who have terrorised others and in particular vulnerable people?
I am beginning to consider it may not only be right but also necessary in a modern society. Ive not been convinced by any of your arguments and would further suggest that your argument is half baked because in the right circumstances your opinion on the death penalty could well change, especially if you were personally affected.
Mine is in flux and I have had to seriously reconsider my stance because of some recent horrific murders and some disgusting murderers. I'm very comfortable with my change of thought though and look forward to its natural conclusion.
PS. Dont expect an early response from me if you have any more enlightened and educated opinions. I'm off for the weekend.
During WW2 after having been raised by a Christian mother and enlisting in the U.S. Marines, I had a difficult time with the thought of killing Japanese enemy troops. I talked to my Chaplain about it. His answer "remember they are trying to kill you. If you want to remain alive you had better kill them before they kill you." I guess he had made his point. Although I came close to death, I did survive and made it back home. Since then I have married with 4 children, 7 grandchildren, and 8 great grandchildren. All of this has happened during my 84 years on this earth.
Aaldtimer
06-Dec-08, 04:09
i would like to say if there was death penalty for monster Peter Tobin when he was first time charged, then he would not have a chance of taking more women's lives after he was released from jail.
Then you would be quite wrong dakud007 (is that a licence to kill in your handle?)! Tobin was first charged with a double rape of two 14 year old girls. So far rape is not punishable by a death sentence, and as far as I know, never has been in this country.
I think the point of keeping these people alive, is to continue to investigate crimes that they may have committed that still have to come to the light.
And, most importantly, to try to understand what makes them commit those crimes.
Aaldtimer
06-Dec-08, 04:19
During WW2 after having been raised by a Christian mother and enlisting in the U.S. Marines, I had a difficult time with the thought of killing Japanese enemy troops. I talked to my Chaplain about it. His answer "remember they are trying to kill you. If you want to remain alive you had better kill them before they kill you." I guess he had made his point. Although I came close to death, I did survive and made it back home. Since then I have married with 4 children, 7 grandchildren, and 8 great grandchildren. All of this has happened during my 84 years on this earth.
Oldmarine, you were an instrument of higher powers. There is no blemish on your conscience. You did what you had to do, under orders.
I think the discussion here is a completely different scenario.
TBH,..."Why would you opt for an ""eye for an eye" when you are not directly affected by a murder? Is there some blood-lust lurking in your psyche that is perhaps a remnant from our not so distant history of attending public executions soley for our entertainment pleasure."...
I think the natural initial outrage of most decent thinking people to the horrors we hear about dailly is just that...natural.
Thankfully the Laws of the country are made by a more dispassionate system.
One of the 10 Commandments states ..." Thou shalt not kill"...
I'm not a religious person, but I'd go along with that.
Two wrongs never made a right.
During WW2 after having been raised by a Christian mother and enlisting in the U.S. Marines, I had a difficult time with the thought of killing Japanese enemy troops. I talked to my Chaplain about it. His answer "remember they are trying to kill you. If you want to remain alive you had better kill them before they kill you." I guess he had made his point. Although I came close to death, I did survive and made it back home. Since then I have married with 4 children, 7 grandchildren, and 8 great grandchildren. All of this has happened during my 84 years on this earth.
Oldmarine, I have the utmost respect for what you did for all of us in WW2.
You and your chaplain were right there right then, you had questions and he had to give you answers to justify what was going on at the time. Christians have bent the rules for 2 millenia in this respect, as have other religions. I expect the Nazis at the Krakow ghetto or at Bergen-Belsen or wherever were also acting under orders. That's war, and there doesn't seem to be anything ordinary people like me can do about it, just like no one managed to stop George Bush going into Iraq (or did we all go along with it at the time?).
I made the original poll 2 short black-and-white questions because death is black and white, though the result of the poll continues to surprise me. I'm all shades of grey of course - if the SAS went in right now and picked off Mugabe I'd be cheering, though I'd rather they just locked him up somewhere for what will hopefully be the very short time he has left on earth.
Anyway, I'm glad you came home from the war OK, and also glad my dad did too, or I wouldn't be here. If we had lost the war, would you and my dad would have been hanged as war criminals? Or would the Axis powers have said no no, the Brits didn't do anything as nasty as we did - we'll let them off.
Do you think someone like Peter Tobin,the court or jury will still give him a chance for appeal?;)
And i don't think American;s justice system is same as here.:D
Executing him will cost how much? How much will the endless appeals, counter-appeals, court fees, lawyer's fees (all on legal aid most likely) cost the tax-payer?
As is seen in the US, these fees often outweigh the cost of imprisoning them for life.
i was thinking what kind of life did Peter Tobin have when he was serving 15yrs sentence in jail? Was he quite enjoying the jail's life?since he commited the crime soon after he had finished the previous sentence.
Then you would be quite wrong dakud007 (is that a licence to kill in your handle?)! Tobin was first charged with a double rape of two 14 year old girls. So far rape is not punishable by a death sentence, and as far as I know, never has been in this country.
I think the point of keeping these people alive, is to continue to investigate crimes that they may have committed that still have to come to the light.
And, most importantly, to try to understand what makes them commit those crimes.
Metalattakk
07-Dec-08, 05:11
Do you think someone like Peter Tobin,the court or jury will still give him a chance for appeal?;)
And i don't think American;s justice system is same as here.:D
Peter Tobin will die in jail. There's little doubt about that.
And no, the American justice system is certainly not the same as ours here in the UK, thank goodness.
The one anomaly still arises though, in that in a US jail it costs a reported $15,000 to $18,000 per year to incarcerate a convicted criminal, whereas here in the UK it costs on average £40,000 to £50,000.
Maybe it's time we clamped down on the extras and peripheries that our prisoners are allowed and afforded.
(And no, executions won't lessen the burden on the tax-payer, after all, they will have the right to appeals, and counter appeals and specialist counsel, it would end up with 20 years of delays followed by appeals followed by more delays and final appeals, ultimately costing more than it would to just lock them up for the rest of their lives...)
Maybe it's time we clamped down on the extras and peripheries that our prisoners are allowed and afforded.
This is too simplistic but it's my sentiments exactly. Give them nothing except strong doses of education and lessons in life and if that fails short sharp shocks:eek:
Aaldtimer
07-Dec-08, 05:19
i was thinking what kind of life did Peter Tobin have when he was serving 15yrs sentence in jail? Was he quite enjoying the jail's life?since he commited the crime soon after he had finished the previous sentence.
If you think that any prisoner enjoys imprisonment, i.e. their denyment of freedom, I think that you are sadly mistaken.
No matter what the priveleges of TV/food/a comfy bed/whatever...there is the nub...the regimentation of prison life, for the duration of their sentences, however long.
Not enjoyable, and rightly so IMHO.
[quote=Metalattakk;467522]Peter Tobin will die in jail. There's little doubt about that.
I met a guy in Glesga that had to do with transporting him and he said he was the most timid, meek excuse for a human being you could ever wish to meet. He felt lek snuffing him out but obviously couldn't.
My opinion is not under any challenge at all. I am convinced I am correct to hold my opinion that taking a life - any life - is fundamentally wrong.
The people who voted 'Yes' just maybe haven't thought about the issue too deeply, seeing as hardly any of them posted a cogitative reason for their vote.
I have a simple moral philosophy. If I dont like something I dont do it. As long as it's legal I dont expect others not to do what I dont do neither do I insist they are wrong for doing it and I would never insist I was right unless there was irrefutable evidence to the contrary. Now, Metal attack insists his moral stance (it is wrong to kill) is right and anyone who thinks differently is wrong. No debate necessary. he has a moral monopoly on the age old human activity called killing. He has no evidence whatsoever to support this rather dogmatic opinion apart from some Ghandi like feelings somewhere in his belly or his head or his backside that it is fundamentaly wrong to kill anything. In fact all the evidence would suggest that the contrary is the case. That under certain circumstances it is not only right to kill but often necessary.
I dont doubt that the idealism both Mettalattack and his mate Ghandi would allude to may become some universal human law in 100,000 years or so, because i think humans have the potential to overcome their deepest instincts but until then turning a blind eye to a fundamental human activity, (killing) is idealistic, half baked and depending on the circumstance, dangerous. Ghandis notion that non violence will prevail has certainly come home to roost in his neck of the woods and continues to threaten worldwide stability between different cultures and religions to this day.
One other thing. I understand and embrace the hesitation to kill but given the right circumstances even Metalattack would kill. About that I have no doubt.
Notwithstanding his opinion on killing being a bit bent his opinion on capital punishment is quite valid. No more than that though. Its certainly not right neither is it wrong. It's only his opinion and therefore is up for debate. Join the real world where killing lives and love often dies.
Earlier in this thread I suggested I could not press the button that begun the process of killing someone so therefore would have to vote against capital punishment. Peter Tobin has made me rethink my position. I could do it for him. And guess what? Im right. Its a valid and cogitative human emotion no less valid than the half baked notion that kiling under any circumstance is wrong. Anger or revenge did not interfere with my change of opinion. Just an overwhelming empathy and sense of justice for a 15 year old nice quite girl and her family who was unfortunate enough to meet a twisted and dangerous individual on her way home from her sisters.
I rest my case for the killers. I just didn't want Metalattakk running away with the mistaken idea that he really is right and people who disagree with him have no cogitative case.
Metalattakk
07-Dec-08, 13:01
Nice wee ramble, gleeber - some good points there I'll admit. Certainly the point about there sometimes being a necessity to take a life is valid.
But, you've dodged the same question that everyone else seems to be dodging:
What exactly is wrong with just locking them up for the rest of their natural lives?
What exactly is wrong with just locking them up for the rest of their natural lives?
As far as I am concerned, what's wrong with locking them up? Simple, The Cost of keeping them for the rest of their natural, execute them, cheaper in the long run.
Metalattakk
07-Dec-08, 13:44
As far as I am concerned, what's wrong with locking them up? Simple, The Cost of keeping them for the rest of their natural, execute them, cheaper in the long run.
Is it, though? Have you calculated it?
It certainly doesn't work that way in the US, where the cost of the appeal processes et al ends up more expensive than the cost of incarcerating them.
And again, you'd prefer to execute so you can save money? Is that not rather barbaric? To save a few quid you'll put to death someone who might not be actually guilty of the crime, and who could, much later have been found innocent after all?
lol people get a life..........even better a grip..get one......this is the 21 centuary it dont happen where we are. we are more sophisticated
lol people get a life..........even better a grip..get one......this is the 21 centuary it dont happen where we are. we are more sophisticated
more sophisticated than what?
i da get 'iss post.....:confused
Is that not rather barbaric? To save a few quid you'll put to death someone who might not be actually guilty of the crime, and who could, much later have been found innocent after all?
I don't consider it barbaric, How many prisoners guilty of murder, have received a prison sentence for the barbaric crime they committed, then have been let out for good behaviour or on license, only to commit murder again,If they had been executed to begin with, other lives would have been saved.
Metalattakk
07-Dec-08, 16:58
I don't consider it barbaric, How many prisoners guilty of murder, have received a prison sentence for the barbaric crime they committed, then have been let out for good behaviour or on license, only to commit murder again,If they had been executed to begin with, other lives would have been saved.
Again (and again and again and again), if they had been locked up with no chance of parole, the exact same could be said.
The answer is to lock them up and never let them out again.
The answer is to lock them up and never let them out again.
Locking them up forever is not good enough, you commit a crime such as murder, then you must be made to pay.
Locked up inside one of our lovely prisons as we have today is not good enough. Let the punishment fit the crime.
As a result of the do'gooders and the PC nation we have today, prisoners in most circumstances are better off in the nick, than many in society on the outside.
I would agree with Gleeber, Shiria Law has some good issues.
Metalattakk
07-Dec-08, 19:15
Locking them up forever is not good enough, you commit a crime such as murder, then you must be made to pay.
Commit murder and you would be 'made to pay' by losing your liberty for the rest of your life.
This obviously 'isn't enough' for you, but anything else would be bowing to the neanderthal blood-lust that still exists in us all, but thankfully, we as a society would seem to have moved on from such behaviour.
As a result of the do'gooders and the PC nation we have today, prisoners in most circumstances are better off in the nick, than many in society on the outside.
I would agree with Gleeber, Shiria Law has some good issues.
Show me a convicted murderer who would prefer to stay in jail?
And golach, if you admire Sharia Law so much, you are more than welcome to go and live in a country where it is practised. Let's see how you'd like it then... ;)
And golach, if you admire Sharia Law so much, you are more than welcome to go and live in a country where it is practised. Let's see how you'd like it then... ;)
I never said I admired Sharia Law, I just said I thought it had some good issues, a difference. But I have worked in Countries that practice Sharia Law, and I can tell you it keeps you on your toes.:eek:
oldmarine
08-Dec-08, 02:13
Peter Tobin will die in jail. There's little doubt about that.
And no, the American justice system is certainly not the same as ours here in the UK, thank goodness.
The one anomaly still arises though, in that in a US jail it costs a reported $15,000 to $18,000 per year to incarcerate a convicted criminal, whereas here in the UK it costs on average £40,000 to £50,000.
Maybe it's time we clamped down on the extras and peripheries that our prisoners are allowed and afforded.
(And no, executions won't lessen the burden on the tax-payer, after all, they will have the right to appeals, and counter appeals and specialist counsel, it would end up with 20 years of delays followed by appeals followed by more delays and final appeals, ultimately costing more than it would to just lock them up for the rest of their lives...)
I believe Maricopa County that takes in Phoenix, AZ where Sheriff Joe rules the prison system gets by even cheaper than that. Even though he has had law suits against him for the way he treats prisoners in his jails, he still does not cost his county or state. Plus he keeps getting elected over and over again. People all over the USA would like him to head the jails in their systems. Plus he has very few prisoners returning to his jails. His phylosopy is: if you don't like it here don't return.
Metalattakk
08-Dec-08, 02:32
Aye oldmarine, I'd have no problem with a system similar to that here in the UK.
The prison system here is too soft on the convicted criminal (although I'm still quite sure it's not a 'nice comfy' place to spend some time) and making it truly a place to fear and dread would go a long way towards deterring criminals of all types.
Aaldtimer
08-Dec-08, 03:58
Aye oldmarine, I'd have no problem with a system similar to that here in the UK.
The prison system here is too soft on the convicted criminal (although I'm still quite sure it's not a 'nice comfy' place to spend some time) and making it truly a place to fear and dread would go a long way towards deterring criminals of all types.
Oh yeh, MA let's have them all living in tents in the UK climate! That'll put the health care bill up a bit!
But of course, you wouldn't provide any...survival of the fittest eh?
Then of course, we could bring back the treadwheel, and picking Oakum! Yeh, that'd teach 'em!
Why not the Birch as well...just to prove how civilised we've become!
Ye God's , get a life will ya? [disgust]
Metalattakk
08-Dec-08, 04:52
Oh yeh, MA let's have them all living in tents in the UK climate! That'll put the health care bill up a bit!
But of course, you wouldn't provide any...survival of the fittest eh?
Then of course, we could bring back the treadwheel, and picking Oakum! Yeh, that'd teach 'em!
Why not the Birch as well...just to prove how civilised we've become!
Ye God's , get a life will ya? [disgust]
Eh??
Aaldtimer: Step away from the whisky. :eek:
Aaldtimer
08-Dec-08, 05:14
Never touch the stuff MA! MAybe at New Year, a wee one to welcome it in, but that's about it!
Once again...you're wrong. :Razz
Again (and again and again and again), if they had been locked up with no chance of parole, the exact same could be said.
no necessarily, i saw a case on the news recently where a prisoner brutally killed another inmate...
you stated earlier no-one answered the question
"What exactly is wrong with just locking them up for the rest of their natural lives?"
i have already said that the death penalty should take from the offender what the offender took from their victims..
And there is also a chance the offender WONT be locked up for the rest of their lives.
Metalattakk
09-Dec-08, 12:50
no necessarily, i saw a case on the news recently where a prisoner brutally killed another inmate...
you stated earlier no-one answered the question
"What exactly is wrong with just locking them up for the rest of their natural lives?"
i have already said that the death penalty should take from the offender what the offender took from their victims..
And there is also a chance the offender WONT be locked up for the rest of their lives.
And there is where the law needs to be changed: Life sentence should mean for the rest of their life, solitary confinement if necessary, absolutely no parole.
If you kill them there's also no chance for a reprieve if the convicted is later found out to be innocent, as has happened in so many cases before.
-------------
So, if you're happy to kill innocent people (it most certainly will happen at some point if capital punishment is re-established) - vote 'Yes'.
If you're happy to kill people just to satisfy some throw-back need for bloody revenge - an eye for an eye, if you will - vote 'Yes'.
If you're happy to have the rest of the civilised world look down on us as brutal savages - vote 'Yes'.
If you're happy to kill people to save money (although that point is debatable so far) - vote 'Yes'.
If you're just happy to kill people then go ahead - vote 'Yes'.
The thing is, you can't tick only one of the above. Once you subscribe to one, you are automatically subscribed into most of the rest.
And there is where the law needs to be changed: Life sentence should mean for the rest of their life, solitary confinement if necessary, absolutely no parole.
If you kill them there's also no chance for a reprieve if the convicted is later found out to be innocent, as has happened in so many cases before.
-------------
So, if you're happy to kill innocent people (it most certainly will happen at some point if capital punishment is re-established) - vote 'Yes'.
If you're happy to kill people just to satisfy some throw-back need for bloody revenge - an eye for an eye, if you will - vote 'Yes'.
If you're happy to have the rest of the civilised world look down on us as brutal savages - vote 'Yes'.
If you're happy to kill people to save money (although that point is debatable so far) - vote 'Yes'.
If you're just happy to kill people then go ahead - vote 'Yes'.
The thing is, you can't tick only one of the above. Once you subscribe to one, you are automatically subscribed into most of the rest.
i would not be "happy" to kill anyone... but in cases where someone has WITHOUT A DOUBT brutaly murdered an innocent person, then i see no other option that is severe enough.
as for revenge?? no.... If someone harmed my kids, THEN i would probably want revenge, id want to get MY hands on them, probably so i could dish out some of the torture they afflicted on my loved ones..
but, without something do horrific clouding my judgement, i think taking their life in a controlled way is justice.
and as for the "civilised" world.. thats a matter of opinion... i dont see the US as uncivilized because capital punishment is carried out there....
the one thing i do agree with you on though is (as there is no death penalty) life should mean life!
Metalattakk
09-Dec-08, 13:32
i would not be "happy" to kill anyone... but in cases where someone has WITHOUT A DOUBT brutaly murdered an innocent person, then i see no other option that is severe enough.
Severe enough to achieve what, exactly? Punishment? A deterrent? Justice for the bereaved family?
Killing the convicted murderer achieves none of the above.
Indeed a (proper) life sentence can be argued to be much more of a punishment and much more of a deterrent.
And another thing, there is no such thing as 'WITHOUT A DOUBT' in UK law. People are convicted on the basis of 'beyond all reasonable doubt' I believe. Where would you draw the line? Indeed, where could you draw the line?
Justice for the victim - the one person who seems to be forgotten in all these arguements. The one who had to suffer god knows what so that some twisted individual could get his/her kicks
There is also no death penalty in UK law, so if it was introduced, it would of course have to be looked at.
I am not claiming to have all the answers to this, but i do know what i beleive - and i beleive the death penalty has its place in the UK.. as long as we have crimes as abhorent as we see preety much reported on a daily basis.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.