The Death Penalty

**John Little** · 21-Apr-13, 17:11

I have no wish to discuss the death penalty.

If I start a thread on say - cars, and someone brings up the subject of hamsters, I still wish to discuss the subject of cars.

If I wish to discuss the nature of Democracy, then that is what I wish to discuss.

If someone wishes to discuss a particular aspect of Democracy, then they are fully entitled to do so; but if it becomes a diversion then it merits another thread.

There appears to be a constituency on these boards for a discussion of the Death Penalty which is one of the topics that one might bring into a micro-examination of hundreds of Democratic issues, but since my intention was rather more Meta I decline to take part in this discussion.

This is something I did not bring up and had/ have no wish to discuss, for good reasons of my own.

I am led to wonder that if I started a thread on any topic whatsoever if it could be turned into a discussion of the Death Penalty; maybe I should start one on Ham Sandwiches and see where that goes.

However, if you wish to do so, please discuss the Death Penalty on this thread.

I shall not be taking part, shall not be advertising my views and will not post on this thread at all.

Knock yersel' out guys...

**Flynn** · 21-Apr-13, 17:17

Civilised countries don't have state sanctioned murder.

The USA has the death penalty, I see no end of murder, rape, robbery etc. in that country.

**cptdodger** · 21-Apr-13, 17:37

Originally Posted by Flynn

Civilised countries don't have state sanctioned murder.

The USA has the death penalty, I see no end of murder, rape, robbery etc. in that country.

And if you look at "The Boston Bombing" thread, you will see that America can use the death penalty when they see fit, regardless whether the crime was committed in a state which sanctions it, or not.

This is the link which explains it better than I can - http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...nalty/2099413/

**jacko** · 21-Apr-13, 19:37

i d like to know your views if it was your wife ,husband ,son ,daughter, brother, sister, mother or father that was murdered . would you still think 8 or 9 years in a cushy nick would be punishment enough. im not a believer in god , but do snt it not state somewhere in it , an eye for an eye???

we do not have a deterent for crime in this country , human rights my arse . the dead victim s never got that option . it s about time some old values were reinstalled.

**cptdodger** · 21-Apr-13, 19:42

Originally Posted by jacko

i d like to know your views if it was your wife ,husband ,son ,daughter, brother, sister, mother or father that was murdered . would you still think 8 or 9 years in a cushy nick would be punishment enough. im not a believer in god , but do snt it not state somewhere in it , an eye for an eye???

we do not have a deterent for crime in this country , human rights my arse . the dead victim s never got that option . it s about time some old values were reinstalled.

I never stated whether I was for or against the death penalty. I was just providing an example of what is happening in America in reference to the Boston Marathon Bombs.

**ducati** · 21-Apr-13, 20:27

Only one thing to discuss. Does it work as in stop or reduce violent crime? In any place or time it has been used, the answer is no.

**Flynn** · 21-Apr-13, 22:30

Originally Posted by jacko

i d like to know your views if it was your wife ,husband ,son ,daughter, brother, sister, mother or father that was murdered . would you still think 8 or 9 years in a cushy nick would be punishment enough. im not a believer in god , but do snt it not state somewhere in it , an eye for an eye???

we do not have a deterent for crime in this country , human rights my arse . the dead victim s never got that option . it s about time some old values were reinstalled.

That's why we have judges and don't leave 'justice' to ill-educated vigilante groups.

**Oddquine** · 25-Apr-13, 23:25

Originally Posted by jacko

i d like to know your views if it was your wife ,husband ,son ,daughter, brother, sister, mother or father that was murdered . would you still think 8 or 9 years in a cushy nick would be punishment enough. im not a believer in god , but do snt it not state somewhere in it , an eye for an eye???

we do not have a deterent for crime in this country , human rights my arse . the dead victim s never got that option . it s about time some old values were reinstalled.

And would you be happy if your innocent child was hanged for something he/she did not do because circumstantial evidence?

**golach** · 25-Apr-13, 23:30

Originally Posted by Oddquine

And would you be happy if your innocent child was hanged for something he/she did not do because circumstantial evidence?

Evidence is rarely circumstantial these days, what with the developement of forensic science these days, I watch CSI, they are magic

**Rheghead** · 25-Apr-13, 23:39

Originally Posted by Oddquine

And would you be happy if your innocent child was hanged for something he/she did not do because circumstantial evidence?

I'm sure if it was the job of a parent to judge their kids in the courts (irrespective of the validity of the evidence) the jails would be largely empty.

**orkneycadian** · 25-Apr-13, 23:45

Originally Posted by Oddquine

And would you be happy if your innocent child was hanged for something he/she did not do because circumstantial evidence?

What's the obsession with hanging innocent people?The point of debate is that it is only for the guilty, proven beyond all doubt.The innocent, the perhaps innocent and your innocent daughter really have nothing to fear.

**flowertot** · 06-Feb-20, 19:16

And if it was your wife, husband, son, daughter, brother, sister, mother, father accused of murder but vehemently denied it? You happy to watch them dangle? How many have died innocent? How many have languished in prison innocently who would have dangled!

**orkneycadian** · 06-Feb-20, 19:51

If it were my wife, husband, son, daughter, brother, sister, mother, father who was accused of murder, buy vehemently denied it and the irrefutable proof showed they were lying, then yes, they would have to dangle. If they don't, then someone else's wife, husband, son, daughter, brother, sister, mother, father may get murdered. Possibly by a newly released murderer, or by a "copy cat" or even someone who feels that the feeble jail sentences that are dished out these days are not enough to discourage them.

**Nigel Shelton** · 21-Apr-13, 22:50

A ham sandwich could be construed as the death penalty for a pig !!!! And thats about as stupid as a load of old tosh that gets put on here by the same old culprits over and over again, Dont even think of Dissing me.LoL

**rob murray** · 25-Apr-13, 15:41

Originally Posted by John Little

I have no wish to discuss the death penalty.

If I start a thread on say - cars, and someone brings up the subject of hamsters, I still wish to discuss the subject of cars.

If I wish to discuss the nature of Democracy, then that is what I wish to discuss.

If someone wishes to discuss a particular aspect of Democracy, then they are fully entitled to do so; but if it becomes a diversion then it merits another thread.

There appears to be a constituency on these boards for a discussion of the Death Penalty which is one of the topics that one might bring into a micro-examination of hundreds of Democratic issues, but since my intention was rather more Meta I decline to take part in this discussion.

This is something I did not bring up and had/ have no wish to discuss, for good reasons of my own.

I am led to wonder that if I started a thread on any topic whatsoever if it could be turned into a discussion of the Death Penalty; maybe I should start one on Ham Sandwiches and see where that goes.

However, if you wish to do so, please discuss the Death Penalty on this thread.

I shall not be taking part, shall not be advertising my views and will not post on this thread at all.

Knock yersel' out guys...

Nah Im sussing you here...why bring the damn subject up eh !! Bread and circuses dear chap !

**rob murray** · 25-Apr-13, 15:50

Derek William Bentley (30 June 1933 – 28 January 1953) was a British teenager hanged for the murder of a police officer, committed in the course of a burglary attempt. The murder of the police officer was committed by a friend and accomplice of Bentley's, Christopher Craig, then aged 16. Bentley was convicted as a party to the murder, by the English law principle of common criminal purpose "joint enterprise". The judge in court sentenced Bentley to death based on an interpretation of the phrase "Let him have it" (Bentley's alleged instruction to Craig), describing Bentley as "mentally aiding the murder of Police Constable Sidney Miles".

At the time of the burglary attempt death, murder was a capital offence in England and Wales. Minors under 18 were not sentenced to death: consequently, of the two defendants, only Bentley faced the death penalty if convicted. The doctrine of felony murder or "constructive malice" meant that a charge of manslaughter was not an option, as the "malicious intent" of the armed robbery was transferred to the shooting. Bentley's best defence was that he was effectively under arrest when Miles was killed.

NOW CAN EVERYONE SEE THAT THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IS AND CAN BE IRRATIONAL : IF THIS STILL DOESNT CONVINCE YOU, WOULD YOU STAND IN FRONT OF THE BOYS PARENTS AND FAMILY AND SAY HIS STATE MURDER ( AS THAT IS WHAT IT WAS ) WAS FOR THE GREATER GOOD, OK A MISTAKE WAS MADE, BUT HELL WHATS A MISTAKE AS LONG AS WE STRING UP THE REALLY GUILTY AND SAVE A COUPLE OF QUID !!!! GET REAL FOR GODS SAKE

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bentley_case

**rob murray** · 25-Apr-13, 16:24

THE JURY didn't want Derek Bentley to hang. They had listened to the cocky, almost boastful evidence of 16-year-old Christopher Craig in the witness-box, casually admitting to owning 40 guns and frankly accepting that he had been the instigator of the criminal enterprise that had resulted in his killing PC Sidney Miles. They had contrasted that with the 19-year-old Bentley's pathetic, child-like performance, showing in nearly every answer his lack of comprehension, his low IQ, his mental dullness. The jury knew that Craig could not hang because of his age; and for Bentley, they recommended that he be shown mercy. Unfortunately, Bentley had the bad luck to be tried and sentenced by one of the last of the hanging judges, Rayner Goddard, the Lord Chief Justice.

We don't have hanging judges today. There are, to be sure, judges who support the death penalty and would be prepared to impose it. But the concept of the hanging judge implied more than mere support for capital punishment. It meant an unwavering belief in "an eye for an eye", a refusal to accept that the act of killing could have any mitigating circumstances, an enthusiasm for putting on the black cap before announcing an imminent execution, and an element of sadistic pleasure in ordering a fellow human being's death.
Lord Goddard fitted all the criteria. A brilliant lawyer, he was also a domineering bully with viciously punitive views on all aspects of criminal justice policy. His idea of fun, after a legal dinner, was to take part in a "boat race", in which two groups of lawyers and judges would arrange themselves on the dining-hall floor in the formation of a rowing eight, and shuffle on their bottoms towards a finishing line. More sinister and perverted was his habit, according to his clerk, of ejaculating when passing a death sentence, so that a fresh pair of trousers had to be brought to court on those occasions.

**orkneycadian** · 25-Apr-13, 17:24

Seems then that the "Let's mollycoddle the accused, just on the off chance that they might be innocent, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary" brigade, have no issue with kiddies being molested, women being raped or the innocent victim being murdered.I guess we should also dispense with prisons in case anyone mistakenly gets sent there too and is deprived of days, months or years of their lives which they will never be able to get back if we got it wrong. Safest then not to convict anyone of anything, just in case.

**tonkatojo** · 25-Apr-13, 18:56

Originally Posted by orkneycadian

Seems then that the "Let's mollycoddle the accused, just on the off chance that they might be innocent, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary" brigade, have no issue with kiddies being molested, women being raped or the innocent victim being murdered.I guess we should also dispense with prisons in case anyone mistakenly gets sent there too and is deprived of days, months or years of their lives which they will never be able to get back if we got it wrong. Safest then not to convict anyone of anything, just in case.

That would appear Flynn and Rob's reasoning, personally if they have reasonable doubt at court they are innocent if not why keep them at horrific cost to tax payers. (I'm beginning to sound like a tory commenting on benefits) so no more from me.

**Flynn** · 25-Apr-13, 20:54

Originally Posted by orkneycadian

Seems then that the "Let's mollycoddle the accused, just on the off chance that they might be innocent, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary" brigade, have no issue with kiddies being molested, women being raped or the innocent victim being murdered.I guess we should also dispense with prisons in case anyone mistakenly gets sent there too and is deprived of days, months or years of their lives which they will never be able to get back if we got it wrong. Safest then not to convict anyone of anything, just in case.

Really? Is that the best you can do? A strawman argument?

I will never condone executing innocent people. Ever.