The Death Penalty or Life Meaning Life

[IAN 2411]

The Death Penalty or Life Meaning Life.

The UK voted the death penalty away, and now I think it should be brought back for certain cases, am i right to ask this, barbarick yes but so is murder? Now here is a question that has been on my mind a lot just recently, I know that there are a few states in America that still have the death penalty as this form of punishment. There is now a knife cult in the UK, and there is not a week that goes by when some poor person gets killed, if it is not the knife then it is the boot. Yes that is right, a person defending his home and family is kicked to death by mindless yobs, or so the papers wish us to believe. I don’t think that in today’s age of education any person can call them mindless individuals; because most have not been drinking. If whether in a gang or by themselves they are damaging a person’s property to get a response, and then kill the owner for protecting his family or home, then that is premeditated murder. I believe in certain cases an eye for an eye and a life for a life. Don’t for one minute think that I have not thought this out, as I know there are cases where it was inevitable things would turn out nasty. Two people fighting with their hands and one falls over hitting his head and dying, temporary insanity, and I believe that does happen, a crime of passion, domestic abuse. Ok the examples are still murder but only deserve life meaning life and in some cases less or even freedom. I have brought up this question because of the young girl being murdered last week in my country, and who did it? The girls ex boyfriend killed her, and I think that that is premeditated whatever the excuse. I expect him to give a plea of guilty and get life, but life in the UK life is 15 years, now that cannot be right. Life meaning life in this country will never happen, because of all the do good people that say, a prisoner must keep the knowledge that he might be freed one day. Now the question is, should the UK bring back the death penalty and hang the murderers, or life meaning life, and for all you people that say an innocent person might be hanged, this is 2010, DNA and first class forensics. Also if it was brought back, have we any Judges that have the balls to serve out the sentence of death, at the moment they have a softer attitude than the JPs.

Regards ian 2411

[Thorne]

The Death Penalty or Life Meaning Life.

I have always supported the death penalty for certain cases. Those who kill randomly, without provocation, who could kill anyone they cross paths with, should be eliminated from society permanently, if for no other reason than that some time down the road they could conceivably convince some bleeding heart that they deserve to be set free. Why take the chance?

On the other hand, some spurned lover who kills his girlfriend is not a general threat to society and should be sentenced to life in prison. Furthermore, allowances should be made to have him perform some form of useful labor to generate revenues, which should then be given to the family of the person he killed. Make some use of him, but keep him confined at the same time.

And there are some cases, like the mother who drowns her children in a fit of post-partum depression, where neither sentence can be considered justice. She is unlikely to be a danger to anyone else, and perhaps should be allowed to apply for parole after a certain period of time.

These are rather simplified cases, but they can be considered guidelines for distributing justice fairly.

Just my opinion.

[denuseri]

The punnishment should fit the crime.

[morwyn{Myrddin}]

Greetings, i live in a country that has the same basic rules as the UK, the most severe sentence one can recieve is life imprisonment, which is in fact not life at all. This is a topic that i have always felt so strongly about and probably always will.
It is my opinion that the death penalty is worng, and sends a wrong message to our young people seeing it. It is saying to them "It is not ok for you to kill someone, but if you do we will kill you". The death penalty seems to me (emphasising once more this is just my opinion) legalised murder. i find myself asking the question......."what have we learned from this? What have we learned in order that such tragedies may not happen again? Am i seeing this from a completely emotive standpoint? Probably, yet my strong beliefs were based initially on a case in our country, one that happened a very long time ago, and was the last woman ever to recieve the death penalty here in new Zealand before it was abolished. For one of my legal papers i studied the case to the minutest detail, determined to prove that the infamous babykiller Minnie Dean, who we as kids had been brought up to fear, was as guilty as anything and deserved the punishment meted out. To my own dismay after reading every gelatinous droplet i could find on her i was without doubt of her innocence. This shocked me and made me re-evaluate my beliefs in the death penalty. i found myself saddened that we as a society had got to the point that hypocrisy could roam freely, where we could say as a people, murder is wrong, and so because you did that we are going to murder you. And what happens to those who cannot afford a decent legal representative? What happens to those who are railroaded into a confession they neither know nor own?

Yes i acknowledge that the majority of cases are not like this. The conviction is warranted and necessary. In these situations, i firmly believe life imprisonment should mean just that, life imprisonment. The person should have a chance to face their crime every day that they live, and live with the consequences. Yet there must also be a time for remorse, for compassion, for an adjustment of life and heart status. For if there is not what hope is there for humanity as a whole. you see i am an eternal optimist. i refuse to believe that a person can be 'all bad', i have to, nay, i choose to believe that all have good in them somewhere, even those that WE judge to be worst of the worst.

yes my viewpoint is entirely emotive, but we are asked for opinions only and so that is mine.

Warmest regards.........morwyn of Myrddin

[Ozme52]

The punnishment should fit the crime.

That simple sentence means what?
A life for a life?
Or some sense of mercy for an act that in some sense is justifiable (as in clinical depression, irrational fear, self defense gone too far...)

I have no idea what you wish to convey.

[denuseri]

That simple sentence means what?
A life for a life?
Or some sense of mercy for an act that in some sense is justifiable (as in clinical depression, irrational fear, self defense gone too far...)

I have no idea what you wish to convey.

Then oh Great Wizard I shall attempt to elucidate:

As the survivor of a violent crime myself, I am hardly impartial on this topic.

And I like Lucretia before me, (though it pains my heart greatly at times to say it, because I also believe in the sanctity of all life) do plea for "Justice" to be done, to be avenged in kind for what was visited upon one.

I only pray that those who hold the power of such dominion over those aforementioned souls; who have committed such wrongful acts as to deserve such reciprocity, do so with honor and wisdom.

[MMI]

All we have is opinions. Some are better founded than others, but who is to say which?

... and to my mind, morwyn's is the best reply to this utterly unnecessary question, which is another Daily Mail type of rant, where the wogs, the killers and the hoodlums are taking over from good old white Britain and its impeccable standards and turning it into ... God knows what ... into something like NEW YORK, heaven forbid!!!! (Just how bad is New York anyway? People seem to live rewarding lives there.)

The only thing I can agree with in ian's post is that life should mean life ... or a lot more than 12-15 years.

English so-called justice is riddled with miscarriages, which no amount of DNA or forensics can stop. Why? Because English justice, along with all other Common Law systems, is based on an adversarial system, where the strongest argument, not the truth, determines guilt or innocence. Arguments are put to a lay jury who decide questions of fact; the judge can only decide questions of law. In other words, laymen have to listen to professional advocates and decide what is the truth by reference to what they are told or what is withheld from them. The judge can only rule on admissability, and decide when to adjourn for lunch.

Under the inquisitorial system, the crime is investigated from the outset by a judge, or under his supervision. By professionals, in other words. This is not to say that they won't get their facts wrong now and again, but they are able to take a professional and experienced approach to the question of guilt or innocence, instead of 12 good men and true, bamboozled by the weight of evidence and subject to oratory tricks of the barristers trying to win their case regardless of the truth.

How much more important is this when considering a capital crime? Fortunately, there are no more capital crimes in England, but if there were - and there are in equivalent jurisdicitions - a man's life would depend upon the skill of his counsel in marshalling sufficient evidence, and, knowing enough law, and being sufficiently eloquent to convince the jury of his innocence - whether guilty or not. And for the prosecution the reverse is true: a guilty verdict is more important than letting an innocent man go free.

Can any 21st century legal system that truly considers itself to be just allow such a horrendous method of deciding whether a citizen should live or die? ian used the word "barbaric" - I would wholeheartedly agree with that description.

Thorne's position is as well-known to me as mine is to him. To some extent I can respect his arguments, but I reject them all as either incorrect or vengeful. I do not accept that retribution is an important part of judicial punishment: it is part, but the least important part, and the part that should be given least emphasis. One wrong does not ameliorate another. Quite the contrary, in fact, as morwyn has pointed out: it is not OK to kill, so killing cannot be an appropriate punishment for those who have killed. We don't justify theft by saying the victim was a burglar. We don't justify blackmail by saying the victim was a fraud. We don't justify rape by saying the victim was an adultress. So I contend, we cannot justfy our hanging, electrocuting or injecting a man by claiming his act of killing to be wrong.

So what do we do with them? Imprison them for a very very long time, and after that, keep them in gaol a bit longer. I believe that a prisoner has a right to know if he is going to be released, and I will admit it to be a human right. I also believe that certain prisoners have a right to know they will never be released, and that, too, is a human right. I do not agree that every individual has the right to expect freedom eventually.

[Thorne]

Thorne's position is as well-known to me as mine is to him. To some extent I can respect his arguments, but I reject them all as either incorrect or vengeful.

Thank you for that respect. Yes, we've gone over this numerous times, and have yet to come even close to an agreement. I can respect your arguments as well, and even agree with some of them.

But I do have to say that there are evil people in this world. People who are a threat to anyone they may meet. A Charles Manson or a Ted Bundy or a John Gacy should never, ever be permitted even to think about parole or freedom. They should be kept away from the rest of society permanently. Yes, a true life sentence could accomplish this, if applied properly. But escapes from prisons do occur. And villains who should never be paroled have been. All it takes is some idiotic do-gooder to come along and say, "Oh, he's paid for his crimes, and he's been a model prisoner, and oh my, he's become a devout Christian and so must be rehabilitated. Set him free to live a good life." Is it possible he would never kill again? Certainly, it's possible. Is it likely? I don't believe so. Manson has, IIRC, admitted that he would have no qualms against killing again if released.

I will always advocate for executing these kinds of evil people. I believe they have earned that punishment, and we owe it to their victims and, more importantly, to the families of the victims, to deliver that quality of justice.

[MMI]

But I do have to say that there are evil people in this world. People who are a threat to anyone they may meet. A Charles Manson or a Ted Bundy or a John Gacy should never, ever be permitted even to think about parole or freedom. They should be kept away from the rest of society permanently. Yes, a true life sentence could accomplish this ...

Up to this point we are in complete accord, but beyond it, our opinions diverge. I cannot support the execution, even for Manson ... even for Stalin or Hitler, to be honest (although I would not have stood on my principles in those particular instances).

I do believe in rehabilitation, and I would hold up the release of a reformed criminal as a success story for the justice system - just as a hanging must be condemned as a failure. What about the rehabilitation of a murderer? I submit that it is virtually certain that most would never want to kill again, and that they could safely be released upon conviction, but for the need to make an example of them pour encourager les autres. The rest might represent a risk to society, and they will need to be kept incarcerated for a very long time.

I am never impressed by pleas from the victim's family for revenge (they call it "justice"): it is nothing other than destructive. Nobody gains. The victim's worst and darkest desires are pandered to, but left unsated. The killer dies but that does not revive the victim, nor does it relieve the pain endured by those left behind. A "balance" is restored - an eye for an eye - but that just leaves two partially blinded people. Balance is not restored, but a new, worse, standard is set instead.

[DuncanONeil]

There is absolutely no way to determine that ANY criminal has "rehabilitated" while they remain in custody. Add to that that one can not recover from murder ...

Up to this point we are in complete accord, but beyond it, our opinions diverge. I cannot support the execution, even for Manson ... even for Stalin or Hitler, to be honest (although I would not have stood on my principles in those particular instances).

I do believe in rehabilitation, and I would hold up the release of a reformed criminal as a success story for the justice system - just as a hanging must be condemned as a failure. What about the rehabilitation of a murderer? I submit that it is virtually certain that most would never want to kill again, and that they could safely be released upon conviction, but for the need to make an example of them pour encourager les autres. The rest might represent a risk to society, and they will need to be kept incarcerated for a very long time.

I am never impressed by pleas from the victim's family for revenge (they call it "justice"): it is nothing other than destructive. Nobody gains. The victim's worst and darkest desires are pandered to, but left unsated. The killer dies but that does not revive the victim, nor does it relieve the pain endured by those left behind. A "balance" is restored - an eye for an eye - but that just leaves two partially blinded people. Balance is not restored, but a new, worse, standard is set instead.

[DuncanONeil]

I believe that this is the second person to bring up the "right" of a person in prison to know that there is a right to know that there will be a time when they can be released. I can not agree!
Now if you want to incarcerate capital offenses in Maricopa County Arizona I might, repeat might, go along with that concept.
Now I do recognize differing levels of murder, but at the same time I am of the opinion that putting a person guilty of Premeditated Murder in prison for life is coddling. The only place I know where Prison is not as good as living on the outside is as noted above.

I agree with Thorne, that there are people that deserve to be executed. Yes it is murder but what other punishment really fits the crime of murder? Said crime affects far more than the person killed.

All we have is opinions. Some are better founded than others, but who is to say which?

... and to my mind, morwyn's is the best reply to this utterly unnecessary question, which is another Daily Mail type of rant, where the wogs, the killers and the hoodlums are taking over from good old white Britain and its impeccable standards and turning it into ... God knows what ... into something like NEW YORK, heaven forbid!!!! (Just how bad is New York anyway? People seem to live rewarding lives there.)

The only thing I can agree with in ian's post is that life should mean life ... or a lot more than 12-15 years.

English so-called justice is riddled with miscarriages, which no amount of DNA or forensics can stop. Why? Because English justice, along with all other Common Law systems, is based on an adversarial system, where the strongest argument, not the truth, determines guilt or innocence. Arguments are put to a lay jury who decide questions of fact; the judge can only decide questions of law. In other words, laymen have to listen to professional advocates and decide what is the truth by reference to what they are told or what is withheld from them. The judge can only rule on admissability, and decide when to adjourn for lunch.

Under the inquisitorial system, the crime is investigated from the outset by a judge, or under his supervision. By professionals, in other words. This is not to say that they won't get their facts wrong now and again, but they are able to take a professional and experienced approach to the question of guilt or innocence, instead of 12 good men and true, bamboozled by the weight of evidence and subject to oratory tricks of the barristers trying to win their case regardless of the truth.

How much more important is this when considering a capital crime? Fortunately, there are no more capital crimes in England, but if there were - and there are in equivalent jurisdicitions - a man's life would depend upon the skill of his counsel in marshalling sufficient evidence, and, knowing enough law, and being sufficiently eloquent to convince the jury of his innocence - whether guilty or not. And for the prosecution the reverse is true: a guilty verdict is more important than letting an innocent man go free.

Can any 21st century legal system that truly considers itself to be just allow such a horrendous method of deciding whether a citizen should live or die? ian used the word "barbaric" - I would wholeheartedly agree with that description.

Thorne's position is as well-known to me as mine is to him. To some extent I can respect his arguments, but I reject them all as either incorrect or vengeful. I do not accept that retribution is an important part of judicial punishment: it is part, but the least important part, and the part that should be given least emphasis. One wrong does not ameliorate another. Quite the contrary, in fact, as morwyn has pointed out: it is not OK to kill, so killing cannot be an appropriate punishment for those who have killed. We don't justify theft by saying the victim was a burglar. We don't justify blackmail by saying the victim was a fraud. We don't justify rape by saying the victim was an adultress. So I contend, we cannot justfy our hanging, electrocuting or injecting a man by claiming his act of killing to be wrong.

So what do we do with them? Imprison them for a very very long time, and after that, keep them in gaol a bit longer. I believe that a prisoner has a right to know if he is going to be released, and I will admit it to be a human right. I also believe that certain prisoners have a right to know they will never be released, and that, too, is a human right. I do not agree that every individual has the right to expect freedom eventually.

[Ozme52]

I favor the death penalty and the host of automatic processes of appeal and review that go with it in the US.... so that to the best of our ability, we avoid executing an innocent person.

I also believe in differentiating between menaces to society v. the one-off act of an "until then" law abiding person.

Each case really must be viewed in isolation. No one over-arching set of rules can cover all circumstances... and that's why juries should be involved in the sentencing of capital murders.

[IAN 2411]

All we have is opinions. Some are better founded than others, but who is to say which?

... and to my mind, morwyn's is the best reply to this utterly unnecessary question, which is another Daily Mail type of rant, where the wogs, the killers and the hoodlums are taking over from good old white Britain and its impeccable standards and turning it into ... God knows what ... into something like NEW YORK, heaven forbid!!!! (Just how bad is New York anyway? People seem to live rewarding lives there.)

The only thing I can agree with in ian's post is that life should mean life ... or a lot more than 12-15 years.

If my question is unnecessary MMI; then why are you taking part in this discussion? For a start it was not a question, or a statement from me I was asking for opinions and that is what discussions are all about. I was not ranting I was giving my opinion and belief and I never said it was the way to go, and neither do I read a rank paper like the Daily Mail, but it is obvious by your criticism that you do. Personally the reason I don’t read The Mail is because there is no page 3 to satisfy my perverted mind and very few glossy pictures. I see that you also make fun of my description of a lawless UK by comparing it with NEW YORK, and I can see no reason for doing that.

I do believe in rehabilitation, and I would hold up the release of a reformed criminal as a success story for the justice system - just as a hanging must be condemned as a failure. What about the rehabilitation of a murderer? I submit that it is virtually certain that most would never want to kill again, and that they could safely be released upon conviction, but for the need to make an example of them pour encourager les autres. The rest might represent a risk to society, and they will need to be kept incarcerated for a very long time.

Yea right, rehabilitate a murderer, he has just killed a bank teller while trying to rob a bank, so we will put him in a class for naughty boys, and when the psychiatrist checks him out in twenty years time, who is probably a bigger nutcase than the murderer, he can let him out on the street to kill again. I have heard all that garbage with paedophiles, and it has never worked with them. Virtually certain they wouldn’t want to kill again you say. Well, as you and I are talking about reading material MMI, where do you get your data, out of the Beano?

I am never impressed by pleas from the victim's family for revenge (they call it "justice"): it is nothing other than destructive. Nobody gains. The victim's worst and darkest desires are pandered to, but left unsated. The killer dies but that does not revive the victim, nor does it relieve the pain endured by those left behind. A "balance" is restored - an eye for an eye - but that just leaves two partially blinded people. Balance is not restored, but a new, worse, standard is set instead.

Let me once again enlighten you MMI, I have four daughters, and if one of them was murdered because of jealousy or in a random act of violence. Then be assured, you are correct the death of the murderer will never bring that daughter back, but I personally would get a lot of satisfaction knowing that his life was going to be terminated very shortly afterwards. I would even send him letters while in prison taunting him on the fact that he was going to die. I can’t help it, because it is the animal instinct in me, and yes it is lust for revenge, maybe I am a barbaric person. I will still be alive, even if i am partially blinded.

So what do we do with them? Imprison them for a very very long time, and after that, keep them in gaol a bit longer. I believe that a prisoner has a right to know if he is going to be released, and I will admit it to be a human right. I also believe that certain prisoners have a right to know they will never be released, and that, too, is a human right. I do not agree that every individual has the right to expect freedom eventually.

Why contradict yourself, in the above you say they have human rights, but you say in the same paragraph [I do not agree that every individual has the right to expect freedom eventually.] but surely that is a human right and a contradiction? In actual fact if you cared to check, a person in a UK prison only has basic rights.

Regards ian 2411

[MMI]

If my question is unnecessary MMI; then why are you taking part in this discussion?

Because, now you have raised this topic once more, it has to be responded to in case, by default, the impression is created that everyone agrees with the ideas originally expressed. Parliament abolished the death penalty in 1965. The question has been considered on more than one occasion since, and as the penalty has not been reinstated, it can now be considered settled, except by those who wish to whip up some kind of reactionary protest in order to impose their will on the people.

... Personally the reason I don’t read The Mail is because there is no page 3 to satisfy my perverted mind and very few glossy pictures

I think I'll just let that comment stand.

Yea right, rehabilitate a murderer, he has just killed a bank teller while trying to rob a bank ...

That's a regular occurrence in the UK, isn't it? Tell me, when did the last bank clerk die in that way?

... so we will put him in a class for naughty boys, and when the psychiatrist checks him out in twenty years time, who is probably a bigger nutcase than the murderer, he can let him out on the street to kill again. I have heard all that garbage with paedophiles, and it has never worked with them. Virtually certain they wouldn’t want to kill again you say. Well, as you and I are talking about reading material MMI, where do you get your data, out of the Beano?

Oh, believe me, ian, I'm right about that. As for the Beano, I would put that comic on a higher intellectual plane than the paper you take.

(With regard to paedophiles, and as a pure aside, I bet Sarah's Law will do nothing to make children safer (from a very low risk of abuse) than before, but it will make it much harder to trace suspects, and it will lead to vigilanteism and the inevitable attacks (and perhaps murder) of innocent people by self-righteous "enforcers" who think they have the right to extract justice on their own terms and in their own way. It's happened before, but these people are too stupid to learn. Despicable! What it will succeed in doing, however, is make it virtually impossible for an ordinary person to interact with kids at an ordinary level. Even you, as the father of four girls - I'm sure you never told me that before - might be regarded as a "risk," especially if it were known that you frequented this website.)

... and if one of them was murdered because of jealousy or in a random act of violence. Then be assured, you are correct the death of the murderer will never bring that daughter back, but I personally would get a lot of satisfaction knowing that his life was going to be terminated very shortly afterwards. I would even send him letters while in prison taunting him on the fact that he was going to die. I can’t help it, because it is the animal instinct in me, and yes it is lust for revenge, maybe I am a barbaric person. I will still be alive, even if i am partially blinded.

This is precisely what I mean. It's spleen, not justice

Why contradict yourself, in the above you say they have human rights, but you say in the same paragraph [I do not agree that every individual has the right to expect freedom eventually.] but surely that is a human right and a contradiction? In actual fact if you cared to check, a person in a UK prison only has basic rights.

Regards ian 2411

In what way do I contradict myself?

Are you suggesting that human rights are not basic rights?

[IAN 2411]

[QUOTE=MMI;840891]Parliament abolished the death penalty in 1965. The question has been considered on more than one occasion since, and as the penalty has not been reinstated, it can now be considered settled, except by those who wish to whip up some kind of reactionary protest in order to impose their will on the people.[QUOTE]

I have to disagree that statement, I believe that there was a mini survey carried out about two years ago. The question asked was should the death penalty be brought back, and the pole was so close that it was said, “If there was a national vote the result would be so close that they would probably have another to get a resounding majority, and it was a you Gov pole I’m sure.” But I will stand and be corrected on that one. I don’t think it is settled and I don’t think it ever will be. How can you say it is a reactionary protest, I have heard this being talked about in a number of places, and once it was outside a church at a wedding that I was attending, so no it is not settled.

Fatal stabbings in the UK 2007/8

Scotland 45

England and Wales 277

Combined that is an average of 6 a week, and that is 6 to many.

In 1977 135 the whole of the UK that is a rise of 38%

Ok there are a lot more people in the UK now than 1977 but that is not an excuse. One death is too many, and until the UK has some sort of deterrent these deaths will no doubt increase. I am sure that if the death penalty was introduced once more and just one of these knife thugs was executed, there would be a dramatic decrease. Now you will argue that it is barbaric justice? Yes, and punishment to fit the barbaric crime, a life for a life.

Amnesty International states that the Death Penalty 'violates the right to life as proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights'. But what about the Human Rights of victims, aren't they entitled to the Right to Life and Prohibition of Torture? The Death Penalty may well be 'the ultimate denial of Human Rights' but if you take another's life then you should no longer benefit from the protections afforded under any legislation.

The bank teller MMI that was a cheap shot, it was an example meaning habitual killers cannot be rehabilitated. If a person carries a knife or any type of weapon to carry out a robbery or any other crime, be assured that he is going to use it. Now while we are on the subject three months ago or just over there was the case of a postman’s son in a post office getting shot, go and ask the postmaster if the man that shot his son should be rehabilitated or hanged, I don’t think you will get a knee jerk response, it will come from his heart?

[QUOTE=MMI;840891]As for the Beano, I would put that comic on a higher intellectual plane than the paper you take.[QUOTE]

Well I expect you would, because it seems you get most of your information from it, I however do have a choice of three papers and all with glossy pictures, when my reading ability falters. LMFAO

Regards ian 2411

[MMI]

That's not the way it works, ian. The question is not settled when you say it is, it was settled when Britain signed the European Convention on Human Rights, which, as you have already pointed out, made judicial executions an infringement of human rights. No exceptions, not even for church-goers.

As for your mini survey, its validiy is reflected in the way you describe it: minute.

I don't quite understand the purpose of the statistics you quote: I agree that there are lots of murders in the UK, far too many, and any way that number can be reduced must be tried. But it must be a legitimate way ... Otherwise we could consider bringing back torture for suspects. Rack them until they admit they did it. It worked in the good old days didn't it? Then hang them to make sure they don't do it again.

"...habitual killers cannot be rehabilitated," you say ...

What, none of them? Ever? How do you know this?

I must point out, however, that we haven't just been talking about habitual killers. We've been talking about all murderers, and most murder victims know their killers and are frequently closely related. Such killers are not serial murderers but have reacted to a situation they could not handle any other way. Those people are unlikely to kill again, and probably regret their action.

Then you ask, what about the Human Rights of the victims? Pardon me for stating the absolutely-bleeding-obvious, but they're dead. Whatever right to life they had was taken away. Unlawfully taken away, granted, but their human rights are fuck-all use to them now. The killer must face the consequences, but it affects the victim not at all whether he be imprisoned, hanged or paroled.

The victim's relatives have lost a loved one, a partner or parent or child; a bread-winner perhaps. They will naturally be grief-stricken, and they will be filled with hatred for the murderer. But their human rights are unaffected.

Justice isn't giving satisfaction to the angry and disgusted in order to mollify them, it is meting out a punishment that is appropriate in the view of sober-minded, dispassionate judges according to a law that has developed over hundreds of years and has been enacted by democratically elected representatives after serious argument and debate (on a free vote, by the way).

"If a person carries a knife or any type of weapon to carry out a robbery or any other crime, be assured that he is going to use it."

If that is true, why do many armed robberies take place where the weapons are displayed but not used?

[Thorne]

I must point out, however, that we haven't just been talking about habitual killers. We've been talking about all murderers, and most murder victims know their killers and are frequently closely related. Such killers are not serial murderers but have reacted to a situation they could not handle any other way. Those people are unlikely to kill again, and probably regret their action.

I agree, those kinds of killers should not be eligible for the death penalty.

But what about the guy who walks into a convenience store, pulls a gun and demands the money, then shoots the cashier after she compliently hands over the cash, simply so she won't be able to ID him to the police? This is a cold blooded killer, one with absolutely no regard for anyone's life. He will kill again whenever he feels like it. And he won't regret it, either. At least, not until he gets caught. Do you really believe that kind of killer should be treated the same as the others?

I don't know about the UK, but if a dog kills a human in the US the dog is put down, regardless of circumstances. I don't see why a cold blooded killer shouldn't be treated in the same way.

Then you ask, what about the Human Rights of the victims? Pardon me for stating the absolutely-bleeding-obvious, but they're dead. Whatever right to life they had was taken away.

What if they're not dead, but in a vegetative state, or paralyzed? Do they still have their human right's then? For all intents and purposes they've lost everything except their lives. Should their attacker get a soft sentence for not killing them?

The victim's relatives have lost a loved one, a partner or parent or child; a bread-winner perhaps. They will naturally be grief-stricken, and they will be filled with hatred for the murderer. But their human rights are unaffected.

No, but their lives have been affected. What of the mother's right to see her child grown and married? What of the daughter's right to have her father walk her down the aisle? What of the toddler's right to be raised by her parents instead of the state? Don't those rights mean anything?

Justice isn't giving satisfaction to the angry and disgusted in order to mollify them, it is meting out a punishment that is appropriate in the view of sober-minded, dispassionate judges according to a law that has developed over hundreds of years and has been enacted by democratically elected representatives after serious argument and debate (on a free vote, by the way).

I agree. And sometimes, the only true justice is to remove a mad dog from society, permanently and finally.

Statistics here in the US show that there is no deterrent value to use of the death penalty. So trying to use the argument that it does would be futile. But that doesn't mean it's wrong. The death penalty has its uses, and its faults. I agree it should be a last resort, for very specific crimes, and only after a lot of deliberation and care. That's one reason why every death sentence in the US is automatically subject to appeal. And when push comes to shove, I have no problem with the state executing a John Allen Muhammad. And while I'm not a violent man, if necessary I would be willing to push the button, throw the switch or pull the trigger myself. Not to deter the others, but to protect the innocent.

[DuncanONeil]

How about that Aussie Granmum hunted down the perps that raped her granddaughter and shot both of them in the jewels?

[QUOTE=ian 2411;840948][QUOTE=MMI;840891]Parliament abolished the death penalty in 1965. The question has been considered on more than one occasion since, and as the penalty has not been reinstated, it can now be considered settled, except by those who wish to whip up some kind of reactionary protest in order to impose their will on the people.[QUOTE]

I have to disagree that statement, I believe that there was a mini survey carried out about two years ago. The question asked was should the death penalty be brought back, and the pole was so close that it was said, “If there was a national vote the result would be so close that they would probably have another to get a resounding majority, and it was a you Gov pole I’m sure.” But I will stand and be corrected on that one. I don’t think it is settled and I don’t think it ever will be. How can you say it is a reactionary protest, I have heard this being talked about in a number of places, and once it was outside a church at a wedding that I was attending, so no it is not settled.

Fatal stabbings in the UK 2007/8

Scotland 45

England and Wales 277

Combined that is an average of 6 a week, and that is 6 to many.

In 1977 135 the whole of the UK that is a rise of 38%

Ok there are a lot more people in the UK now than 1977 but that is not an excuse. One death is too many, and until the UK has some sort of deterrent these deaths will no doubt increase. I am sure that if the death penalty was introduced once more and just one of these knife thugs was executed, there would be a dramatic decrease. Now you will argue that it is barbaric justice? Yes, and punishment to fit the barbaric crime, a life for a life.

Amnesty International states that the Death Penalty 'violates the right to life as proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights'. But what about the Human Rights of victims, aren't they entitled to the Right to Life and Prohibition of Torture? The Death Penalty may well be 'the ultimate denial of Human Rights' but if you take another's life then you should no longer benefit from the protections afforded under any legislation.

The bank teller MMI that was a cheap shot, it was an example meaning habitual killers cannot be rehabilitated. If a person carries a knife or any type of weapon to carry out a robbery or any other crime, be assured that he is going to use it. Now while we are on the subject three months ago or just over there was the case of a postman’s son in a post office getting shot, go and ask the postmaster if the man that shot his son should be rehabilitated or hanged, I don’t think you will get a knee jerk response, it will come from his heart?

[QUOTE=MMI;840891]As for the Beano, I would put that comic on a higher intellectual plane than the paper you take.

Well I expect you would, because it seems you get most of your information from it, I however do have a choice of three papers and all with glossy pictures, when my reading ability falters. LMFAO

Regards ian 2411

[MMI]

First of all, Thorne, I don't agree with your suggestion that cold-blooded killers should be treated in the same way as vicious dogs: they have rights which must be respected, notwithstanding their disregard for other people's rights. Executing them demeans not only them, but us as well, and it accomplishes nothing. I acknowledge that killing them removes them from society and prevents them killing again, but there are other, more humane, ways of doing that.

With regard to the point you make about surviving relatives, their loss is sad and the consequences are regrettable. But I don't believe any of the people in the situations you describe would feel adequately compensated by the death of the murderer, and, frankly, if that was all it took to put matters right for them, one must question how seriously affected by the death they truly were .

[Thorne]

First of all, Thorne, I don't agree with your suggestion that cold-blooded killers should be treated in the same way as vicious dogs: they have rights which must be respected, notwithstanding their disregard for other people's rights. Executing them demeans not only them, but us as well, and it accomplishes nothing. I acknowledge that killing them removes them from society and prevents them killing again, but there are other, more humane, ways of doing that.

I will partly agree with one thing you say: the process can be demeaning. But only when we allow our court systems to treat criminals lightly and not hand out the harshest penalties permitted by law to those who deserve it. Yes, the accused do have certain rights, and they must be protected. But once convicted, those rights are reduced to bare minimum, or at least should be. I, for one, have never felt demeaned by any execution.

With regard to the point you make about surviving relatives, their loss is sad and the consequences are regrettable. But I don't believe any of the people in the situations you describe would feel adequately compensated by the death of the murderer, and, frankly, if that was all it took to put matters right for them, one must question how seriously affected by the death they truly were .

Something else we can agree on, at least partly. (Will wonders never cease?) I don't feel the relatives would feel adequately compensated, either. But they might feel that justice had been done. They can know that the killer won't be permitted to gain even the meager amount of pleasure that might be found in a prison environment. And while I have thankfully never been in the position of such relatives, perhaps they can gain a bit of satisfaction from knowing that the person who killed their loved one will know his end is coming, know the very day and hour, and will have to deal with that knowledge. I don't say it would bring them joy. At least, I hope not. But maybe some closure. So they may grieve for their loved one without the constant knowledge that her killer is still alive.

[IAN 2411]

First of all, Thorne, I don't agree with your suggestion that cold-blooded killers should be treated in the same way as vicious dogs: they have rights which must be respected, notwithstanding their disregard for other people's rights. Executing them demeans not only them, but us as well, and it accomplishes nothing.

How can you say they have rights that have to be respected, they should lose their rights at the same time they took away the right of another to live.

Executing them demeans not only them, but us as well, and it accomplishes nothing. I acknowledge that killing them removes them from society and prevents them killing again, but there are other, more humane, ways of doing that.

Demean.

To reduce somebody to a much lower status in a humiliating way, degrades.

Who the hell care if the killer that is being executed is degraded, humiliated, or feels that his status is lowered; and I am damn sure that England’s last hangman, [Pierpoint] never once felt that way and neither would I. And I very much doubt that all those people, that go and witness the executions of the killers of their loved ones in the States, would agree with you either. They don’t go to humiliate the killer, they go to see justice and get closure.

With regard to the point you make about surviving relatives, their loss is sad and the consequences are regrettable. But I don't believe any of the people in the situations you describe would feel adequately compensated by the death of the murderer, and, frankly, if that was all it took to put matters right for them, one must question how seriously affected by the death they truly were .

You must have a very misguided view of mankind, because I don’t think you have a clue what you’re talking about in that paragraph. You are now speaking not for yourself but for all of mankind, and it is a careless remark at the least.

[mkemse]

Depending on the Crime the death Penaliuty shoud be sued, ie: Child Malistation, ect but in reality if you execute someone for killing soeone that will not bring the victim back, by setencing that person to life in prison, he not only gets to ivie in bad conditions, but more imprtant, he/she can spend the ret of their lives realizingwhat they di
Tak Scott Peterson who killed his wife a number of year back and his unborn son
The JUdge was brilliant, he sentenced Scott to life in Prison in Supermax but order him to be placedin a very specific cell that over looks the exact spot his wifes body was found washed onto shore,, nothing nicer then looing out 1 window and know that is were her bosdy wa found, that MAY make him think about what he did and the Judge said he ordered him placedin that specific cell for that reason

[Saheli]

All my thoughts on the death penalty contrast each other, so I don't really debate on either side of it, since I don't know what side I favor. I feel like murder is wrong, but I feel like the decision to muder a murderer through capital punishment is still wrong, since I believe that the decision to take anyone's life is not up to me or anyone else. If someone is a murderer, then yes they have done wrong, but if someone else does the same wrong, does that make it right?

On the other hand, it makes it better...since that person will never murder again. And keeping someone in prison for the rest of their life (not the legal term life but their actual life...until the day they die) is really expensive. And I don't particularly want my taxes to pay for that, either! But apart from the expenses there is room to consider...overcrowded prisons or many more of them...neither option is appealing to me.

What's the solution? I think both suck...I feel like murder is wrong, regardless of the circumstances, but logically, it seems like the most administratively practical thing to do.

[Thorne]

mkemse: I believe that Scott Peterson's penalty is justice. While he committed murder, it was of a personal nature rather than a random attack. I don't advocate the death penalty for something like that. I also wouldn't consider a child molestor to be eligible for the death penalty, unless he killed his victims in an attempt to cover up his crime.

Saheli: But for those who kill innocent people who's only mistake was being in the wrong place at the wrong time, these killers are a threat to society as a whole. No one is safe. And no prison is escape proof. While the likelihood of them getting back into the real world may be small, it is too great a risk to take. These kinds of killers deserve a death sentence.

[MMI]

Saheli, I, for one, am not prepared to say that the cost of keeping a prisoner in gaol is greater than the value of his life.

[QUOTE=Thorne;841781] ... And no prison is escape proof ...QUOTE]

Then make them escape proof!

According to your President, no-one has ever escaped from a supermax prison.

[Thorne]

[QUOTE=MMI;841851]

... And no prison is escape proof ...QUOTE]

Then make them escape proof!

That's easy enough. Kill all the prisoners. Dead prisoners can't escape. Barring that, it's not as easy as you make it sound.

According to your President, no-one has ever escaped from a supermax prison.

Yet!

MMI, I know that you are sincere in your beliefs, and I respect you for that. And you are right in that many governments all around the world have eliminated the death penalty. Assuming that this is the will of the people, I can accept that. Many US states have also eliminated the death penalty, because the people of those states decided to do so. That does not, however, make those people any more civilized than those who have not so decided.

I am equally sincere in my beliefs. Some people need to be executed. They are too evil to be allowed to remain alive. And, in my opinion, keeping them alive, feeding them three healthy meals a day, providing them a dry place to sleep, giving them free medical care, etc., is not only a waste of tax dollars, it is an insult to the victims, families, and citizens.

[mkemse]

mkemse: I believe that Scott Peterson's penalty is justice. While he committed murder, it was of a personal nature rather than a random attack. I don't advocate the death penalty for something like that. I also wouldn't consider a child molestor to be eligible for the death penalty, unless he killed his victims in an attempt to cover up his crime.

Saheli: But for those who kill innocent people who's only mistake was being in the wrong place at the wrong time, these killers are a threat to society as a whole. No one is safe. And no prison is escape proof. While the likelihood of them getting back into the real world may be small, it is too great a risk to take. These kinds of killers deserve a death sentence.

I agree I was not clear, if a Child Molester killed the child they do deserve the death penilty
There are a few othr situation where I could live with usdingit, but gneraly speaking i think life in prison witn no parole is more severe the the death penilty, becuase the person who commited the crime would have to live the rat of his or her life in a small cell and think about what they did, puttingthem to death solves nothing, making them live withthe crime the ret o their lives in a 10x14 cell over time would have an effect on them, no tv, magazines all they can do is think and look out a window if the have one in their cell
As far as SCott Peterson goes, he got what he deserved, killing him would be his easy way out, making him look daily atthr spot where his wifes body washed up onshore will have a far deeeper effect in the long term for him then taking his life and i do not think whether it was personal ro not is the issue, the crime if killing his wife AND unborn son in itself is enough and yes he did get what he deseres, no death entily andthe rest of this life 23 hours a day in a cell 1 hour to shower and excersie is almost to kind

[DuncanONeil]

But they have TV, cable in fact. And a free gym membership. Plenty of time for socializing. Good food. Libraries and school classes, if they choose. Free medical treatment. Sports. Outside visitors, some times even conjugal. In other words the ultimate level of welfare.
Perhaps the only thing lacking is security from the criminal element!

I agree I was not clear, if a Child Molester killed the child they do deserve the death penilty
There are a few othr situation where I could live with usdingit, but gneraly speaking i think life in prison witn no parole is more severe the the death penilty, becuase the person who commited the crime would have to live the rat of his or her life in a small cell and think about what they did, puttingthem to death solves nothing, making them live withthe crime the ret o their lives in a 10x14 cell over time would have an effect on them, no tv, magazines all they can do is think and look out a window if the have one in their cell
As far as SCott Peterson goes, he got what he deserved, killing him would be his easy way out, making him look daily atthr spot where his wifes body washed up onshore will have a far deeeper effect in the long term for him then taking his life and i do not think whether it was personal ro not is the issue, the crime if killing his wife AND unborn son in itself is enough and yes he did get what he deseres, no death entily andthe rest of this life 23 hours a day in a cell 1 hour to shower and excersie is almost to kind

[IAN 2411]

England 28th Jan 2010

Published: Today
MORE than 1,000 mourners turned out yesterday to say goodbye to murdered teen Asha Muneer.
Asha's grieving family held her funeral in a leisure centre rather than at home because so many people wanted to pay their respects to the 18-year-old student.
Mourners including the sixth former's classmates began arriving hours before the service started.
Many hugged and comforted each other, while others said prayers or quietly wiped tears from their eyes. One weeping relative could not bear to watch as Asha's coffin, covered in green, was revealed at the Rivermead Leisure Centre in Reading, Berks.
A green curtain separated men and women, as would normally happen at a mosque.
Asha's taxi driver dad Mohammed, 67, her mum Nasreen, 47, brother and three sisters were too upset to talk after the service.
But her uncle Saeed Iqbal thanked the local community for giving the family "wonderful support". He said: "Nobody can understand the hell we've been through. She was innocent and somebody took her life for no reason. It's terrible for the whole family."

Mr Iqbal called for the reintroduction of the death penalty, saying: "We are looking for justice and justice is a life for a life."
Tim Royle, head of Highdown School where Asha was studying English, sociology and economics, said: "Asha will be remembered with great affection."
After the service her coffin was driven to a local cemetery.
Asha's body was found last week next to the River Kennet in Reading.
The part-time shop assistant had suffered 25 stab wounds.
A 19-year-old is charged with murder.


Well MMI that has shot your theory that no one involved in murders wants the death penalty as revenge and retribution. You also said that relatives would never want a life for a life, but normal people are not as forgiving as you, and when they are hurt, they want to hurt back. I would also like to point out to you that this is the actual murder that i was refering to in my original post in this thread. Good timing or what? All that we have to do is find out which TV channal her murderer will be watching inbetween his three top class meals that he will be getting for the next 12 - 15 years. Then we can give him some rehabilitation money and send if off to get upset and kill again.

Regards ian 2411

[MMI]

How can you say they have rights that have to be respected, they should lose their rights at the same time they took away the right of another to live.

That's one opinon. It goes against the principle of the European Convention on Human Rights, and because of that, it will have to remain no more than an opinion. Fortunately, I would add.

Demean.

To reduce somebody to a much lower status in a humiliating way, degrades.

Who the hell care if the killer that is being executed is degraded, humiliated, or feels that his status is lowered; and I am damn sure that England’s last hangman, [Pierpoint] never once felt that way and neither would I. And I very much doubt that all those people, that go and witness the executions of the killers of their loved ones in the States, would agree with you either. They don’t go to humiliate the killer, they go to see justice and get closure.

I know what the words I use mean, thank-you. I was more concerned about the demeaning of a society which imposes the death penalty in the name of justice than I was for the feelings of the killer. But the killer still has basic rights and a just society will not take them away. Britain is a just society and will not bring back judicial murder to quieten reactionary calls for revenge on the part of the victims and their families.

You must have a very misguided view of mankind, because I don’t think you have a clue what you’re talking about ... . You are now speaking not for yourself but for all of mankind, and it is a careless remark at the least.

From my perspective, calls for blood-justice are out-dated, counter-productive and not to be countenanced under any circumstances. I don't make that remark casually: I truly belive it. Once again, it is pleasing to note that every government in the EU subscribes to a similar point of view, and people are not being executed to avenge a victim's death, no matter how badly relatives lust after the killer's death.

Well MMI that has shot your theory that no one involved in murders wants the death penalty as revenge and retribution. You also said that relatives would never want a life for a life, but normal people are not as forgiving as you, and when they are hurt, they want to hurt back. I would also like to point out to you that this is the actual murder that i was refering to in my original post in this thread. Good timing or what? All that we have to do is find out which TV channal her murderer will be watching inbetween his three top class meals that he will be getting for the next 12 - 15 years. Then we can give him some rehabilitation money and send if off to get upset and kill again.

Regards ian 2411

How so? Mr Iqbal is asking for revenge but disguising it as a call for justice. As you clearly have a fascination for the meaning of words, why not compare "justice" with "revenge" to see if they are synonymous.

One other thing, I would ask you not to attribute hare-brained notions to me in order to expose them as unsupportable. I never said no one involved in murders wants the death penalty as revenge and retribution (in fact it seems to me that those who do want it are seeking revenge and retribution), nor did I say relatives would never want a life for a life. What I did say was that a life for a life would not satisfy them, they would yearn for more.