New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

Made the following comments when a similar thread was posted a couple of years back - haven't changed my mind!


Gut instinct says that scum like this don't deserve to be on the streets and it would be much less expensive to just do away with them!

BUT

When looked at in terms of the objectives of punishment, the death penalty only really works on an "eye for an eye basis". Fine, revenge can be a valid, if dangerous motive.

The main problems I have with it are threefold. First, punishment is caried out on behalf of society, i.e. you and I. I don't want anyone killed on my behalf, not even this scum. Reason? I question the moral imperative of any justice system that condemns murder, but then sanctions it as a punishment.

Secondly, I think a life in prison is probably a more severe punishment. If it is currently an easy option, that should be changed, but that's not an excuse to bring in the death penalty - make doing time mean something again!

Thirdly, if the wrong person is convicted, there is nothing that can done once the sentence is executed. In this age of forensics, mistakes are rare, but they still happen and forensics are just a tool used by humans who are notoriously fallable and subject to corruption etc..

A wise man once said that if you wanted to examine the state of a society, look at the way it treats its outcasts!

The death penalty, though satisfying on a visceral level, would be a big step back for UK society.

If you want to see a really good rebuttal of the death penalty, which provides fair exposition on both sides check out the following vid.


Ns "case closed m'lord" 04

toneh

iTrader: (1)

How many self confessed kiddie fiddlers are roaming the streets after having so called rehabilitation ?
There is a friend and member who posts on here who's mrs works with such sicko,s
Who have been convicted of sick crimes
And no matter what they will not change
It does sound harsh but why are we trying to change people like this
Just kill em
I don't give a toss how the implementing of the death penalty reflects on the society we live in
As long as it means it's one less sicko that could be potentially walking the streets

dirtybarry

+ 1

dirtybarry

[quote=New_scooby_04;10816947]Made the following comments when a similar thread was posted a couple of years back - haven't changed my mind!


Gut instinct says that scum like this don't deserve to be on the streets and it would be much less expensive to just do away with them!

BUT

When looked at in terms of the objectives of punishment, the death penalty only really works on an "eye for an eye basis". Fine, revenge can be a valid, if dangerous motive.

The main problems I have with it are threefold. First, punishment is caried out on behalf of society, i.e. you and I. I don't want anyone killed on my behalf, not even this scum. Reason? I question the moral imperative of any justice system that condemns murder, but then sanctions it as a punishment.

Secondly, I think a life in prison is probably a more severe punishment. If it is currently an easy option, that should be changed, but that's not an excuse to bring in the death penalty - make doing time mean something again!

Thirdly, if the wrong person is convicted, there is nothing that can done once the sentence is executed. In this age of forensics, mistakes are rare, but they still happen and forensics are just a tool used by humans who are notoriously fallable and subject to corruption etc..

A wise man once said that if you wanted to examine the state of a society, look at the way it treats its outcasts!

The death penalty, though satisfying on a visceral level, would be a big step back for UK society.

If you want to see a really good rebuttal of the death penalty, which provides fair exposition on both sides check out the following vid.



topic closed then

hodgy0_2

that's fine

if it is your belief that a failed state like Romania has lower crime than sweden

richie001

iTrader: (3)

I'm not sure either way.

You hear about New Orleans(was on Sky 1 this week),there are 58 murders per 100,000 people in 2011.Most country's don't have that kind of murder rate and they have the death penalty in Louisiana.

toneh

iTrader: (1)

[QUOTE=richie001;10817000]I'm not sure either way.

You hear about New Orleans(was on Sky 1 this week),there are 58 murders per 100,000 people in 2011.Most country's don't have that kind of murder rate and they have the death penalty in Louisiana.[/

Nutters , kiddie fiddlers , ect are gonna commit crimes no matter what penalty they may face
The question is do you want to keep em after they have committed the crime
Is it better to keep them in prison/ hospital at our cost and have a chance of them getting released or kill em

nik52wrx

Kill em, as you put it.
As said, it saves on the cost of keeping them and eliminates the risk of future release. Somebody who murders a child deserves the death penalty imo. No place for them in society after committing such a crime and I for one as a tax payer don't want to finance a cushy life in prison for them.

Nik

[QUOTE=toneh;10817004]

DYK

Bit like terrorists really,you can't negotiate with them.

Boro

iTrader: (1)

Not strictly true. IRA negotiations went well back in the day.

Terminator X

iTrader: (7)

I doubt it David, there are only a few proper "lifers" in the UK. The average time in jail is just 13 years as my quote.

TX.

Leslie

We need the kind of penalty for murder that will really make people think twice before doing that.

I think that if someone is prepared to kill another person then they deserve the death penalty anyway. Why should they expect any special treatment.

Obviously the trial should be very carefully done and it should be certain that the person accused definitely committed the murder.

Sexual attacks and murder of young children is a heinous offence of course. Those guilty of such an offence deserve whatever they get as a penalty and the sentence should be such that they are dissuaded from such shameful actions.

Les

toneh

iTrader: (1)

Unfortuantly for some killers and perverts nothing will dissuade them , some see no wrong in what they do or have done , in these cases after one offence , kill em
I'm not joking how many cases have we heard that a pervert or killer has been out on bail or released on licence or some other Micky mouse get out of jail free card , only to offend again

hodgy0_2

obviously!!!!!

if the jury is not certain then people are not convicted

I don't how many times this needs repeating -- but I am afraid there is no concept of "really guilty"

when Barry George was convicted of the cold blooded murder of Jill Dando - the jury were certain he was guilty

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

The jury don't have to be certain hodgy, the law requires the standard of convinced "beyond reasonable doubt" Not "certain the defendant did it"

hodgy0_2

i nearly put "certain - beyond reasonable doubt" in my post

apologies I did not, but I don't think it changes anything tbh

toneh

iTrader: (1)

As I've said before I have a friend who's mrs works with certain offenders and there are people out there who without doubt are guilty , you could not be left alone in the same room

So
The bulger killers
The west
Hindly & Brady
Huntley
Sutcliffe

Are not really guilty
Yes these are high profile cases but there are hundreds of cases that we don't hear of
And the chances of a normal everyday person getting picked up for no reason being accused of murder , And convicted is slim to say the least
In a lot of cases I think some arrests are a case of ( no smoke without fire )
Bring back the death penalty , I'm not worried , I'll take my chances

GlesgaKiss

Lol. It was the delivery of Les's post that made me laugh. Was just begging for a reply like this.

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

If deterrent is possible for such a heinous act and that is a big "IF" under the conditions that most murders occur, then the evidence that the death penalty serves this purpose is, at best, very dubious.

See above post about the objectives of punishment and societal implications.

Not possible for 100% certainty of guilt to be achieved. Many examples of miscarriages of justice even in times of forensic evidence. There is no retracting a death penalty once administered.

As the lady at the end of the Penn and Teller video eloquently states: You cannot escape the paradox of the death penalty. If you advocate the death penalty and the state so much as murders one innocent person in your name -and killing an innocent person is murder- then by your own logic, you deserve to die.

Hard to dissuade a dead person, Les!

What you have, understandably, in these kinds of threads is a lot of decent people advocating the death penalty as a means of illustrating just how appalled they are by a heinous crimes, but the more heinous the crime, the more important it is that we deal with issues of punishment dispassionately.

Pretty remarkable really, I think most people on this thread would accept that the death penalty's value as a deterrent is questionable, there is a significant risk that somewhere along the line an innocent person will be killed and it provides no prospect of rehabilitation, but eff it, kill em anyway!

You wouldn't chose a washing machine using logic that crappy and yet .....

This is why anger and disgust can never be allowed to rule the day in a civilized society, because when that happens, we move one step closer to the people we condemn.

GlesgaKiss

That comes across a naive in the extreme.

JTaylor

I reasoned my way to being opposed to the death penalty when I was about fifteen, however, having considered Leslie's observation that the trial should be "very carefully done" and that the person to be killed by the state must have "definitely committed the murder", I'm seriously considering a reversal.

Dirk Diggler 75

Bring it back and lets see some scumbags swing ...............
Gotta be better than x factor ......

Busterbulldog

iTrader: (1)

with telephone voting on type of death....with celebrities doing the killing...then I could muster an interest

nik52wrx

Better give Simon Cowell a call then!

GlesgaKiss

You forgot to mention the fact that it will dissuade paedophiles from such shameful thoughts and show them the error of their ways... knock some ruddy sense into the old chaps.

warrenm2

Question is... what would Jimmy Savile do?

toneh

iTrader: (1)

Like I've said in a lot of cases the death penalty cannot be used to deter certain criminals from committing crime because in many cases they do not have the logic or morals to understand they are doing wrong , and as for rehabilitation , please tell me why we should attempt to rehabilitate some people and run the risk they will offend again ?
If you had a dog that bit a child's face would you consider training it in order to leave it with another child ?
And as for Anger and disgust ruling The day ,And getting closer to the person you are condemning,what a load of rubbish , there's a massive difference commiting someone to a death sentence and killing them for crimes they have committed , you would be doing it to rid society of scum not for sick sadistic pleasure And self gratification which is what some sickos do

So there is no comparison whatsoever ,

Stop making excuses and see the world how it is , fact there are untreatable criminals out there , that will a do re offend , we don't need them , dont want them , get rid of em

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

Then imprison them for life! Simple! We may have to pay for it, but -moral arguments aside-seeing as death is a lighter sentence than being locked up for the rest of your days then it's the obvious way to punish the worst recidivists.

Killing a person completely undermines societies moral imperative for punishing a murderer, can't you see the hypocrisy in that?? it's tantamount to saying "Killing is wrong, so we're going to punish you by killing you!!" It's borderline idiotic as well as being amoral. When things get to that level, we may as well just abandon the idea of law because we're doing the very thing we're condemning the criminal for. There IS a direct comparison. Punishment does NOT exist purely to gain vengeance on behalf of the wronged, if that were the case, an "eye for an eye" would be legitimate. Punishment is an instrument of society intended to sustain its values and order: hence why criminal cases are the 'crown vs x'. If there is a death penalty, someone is put to death on YOUR behalf, if you consent to that by advocating the death penalty the blood is on your hands! If one innocent person is put to death then by your own logic, you have been an instrument of murder and you MUST be killed!

-Does the death penalty serve as a deterrent? There is no convincing evidence to suggest so
-Does it rehabilitate? No
-Does it protect society, assuming the person is guilty then yes, but so does prison if we get the sentencing right!
-Is there a chance for any mistakes to be rectified? No
-Is there a risk that we would kill some innocent people? Yes.
-Does is satisfy for the base urge for retaliation? Yes... and then some. Unless we kill an innocent in which case all that has been achieved is the unnecessary death of two victims AND the real responsible party is still at large!

In view of the above, the only response of a rational society is to say we do not want the death penalty; what we want is for the sensible reform of the prison system so that dangers to society are kept off the street and that serving time means exactly that!!

Like I said, anyone who believes in the death penalty, really needs to look at the Penn and Teller clip above. If you view that and still think the death penalty is a good idea, then I really hope that you're in the minority, for society's sake!

DYK

We will be having a running man type game show next....
Saturday evenings at 7pm

toneh

iTrader: (1)

Let's put things in perspective I'm not advocating the death penalty for my own pleasure , satisfaction or whatever
I'm advocating it for a number of reasons
Prisons are soft option , fact , I recently did a job in a secure unit for young offenders (killers ect )
They have everything including a bmx track within the complex
I also know a hell of a lot who have been in various prisons around the country for periods of up to two years , for robbery , growing cannabiss , theft , persistent driving offences , violence offences and not one has said the actual prison was bad
It was just loss of liberty
So are they terrible places ?
Second life is definitely not life in many many cases
And you will find many offenders not only do they not serve the sentence given by the courts but get early release ?
Then there's the re offending issue , never should any killer , rapist , peado be given the chance to re offend ,, but they are and do !
How many rapists , child sex offenders ect serve a **** poor sentence then are let out
This never ever should be allowed to happen ,
And on the the subject of hypocrisy , do you not think , let's take for example John venables
Here you go son you've took someone's life and ruined his family's but you've done enough bmx , play station , and stayed in long enough , go out know and carry on being a sicko
It's one big joke
And is war and killing for the sake of peace not slight hypocrisy ?

Some people will never change , prison will do nothing , they are not needed or wanted in society and the world would be a better place without them