With the Woolwich murder in mind, and the little Welsh girl’s murder, would you bring back the death penalty?
My own thoughts are you would need to be absolutely certain and there could be no possible doubt that you’ve got the right person, and that there is no remorse then my answer would be yes.
Death penalty yes or no?
Moderators: Admin, Ralph, asl, Robin
It may have a detrimental effect as with some of these groups as they often believe in martyrdom for their cause
Definatley how much have we waisted on Brady,Hindley,Rose West,Neilson and countless others none of them deserve to draw breath as far as l am concerned.The money waisted on them in prison could be spent on our old age pensioners who cant afford to exist.
Up and running in Walthamstow.baggy89 wrote:Can you read? If so I suggest you go read up on Sharia Law as I bet a lot of your opinions on the judicial system are entrenched firmly in the same beliefs as those that make up the basis of Sharia Law.
[img]http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/05/26/5ehy6yra.jpg[/img]
Just have to click on the link then..Ralph wrote:i can see it there but vast majority on here dont use that app
http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/05/26/5ehy6yra.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Ignorance is one thing lazyitis is another...Ralph wrote:when you come to the UK you obey the laws of the UK. Sharia Law has no place in the UK
1. There is no such thing as UK law.
2. ENGLISH law is based on the principles created by Lex talionis, the Christian interpretation of the Jewish Talmud, guess what the Islamic interpretation is?
3. Taken to its extreme, as Islamic fundamentalists are intent on, gives rise to the "eye for an eye" punishments for crimes. I.e. death penalty for murderers.
It never fails to amuse me, the sheer number of numpties who create merry hell about Sharia Law then espouse the EXACT same views and beliefs that Sharia Law encapsulates because "it's what dem Muslims fink innit"
Plebs...
Have you been radicalized ?your rant's seems to look that way.
Dont fink l agree wif u mush have read of this
http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/2013/ ... -elsewhere" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I will be having no more to say on this.
Dont fink l agree wif u mush have read of this
http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/2013/ ... -elsewhere" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I will be having no more to say on this.
Hmmm, which part of my post suggests I am for Sharia law?
All your link does is highlight, when brought to it's extreme, people's basic human rights are removed. Much like taking people's right to life away for committing murder, an eye for an eye.
It is a dangerous thing to allow emotion to cloud judgement in law.
All your link does is highlight, when brought to it's extreme, people's basic human rights are removed. Much like taking people's right to life away for committing murder, an eye for an eye.
It is a dangerous thing to allow emotion to cloud judgement in law.
-
- Posts: 29824
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
No - punishment should be a deterrent and therefore as unpleasant as is possible under our laws or prevailing morality. Execution is an easy get-out for criminals in my view and much more preferable to a life-long jail sentence.
Me personally, if I was in the emotional state where I was considering murdering a few people, the prospect of life in prison would be much more depressing thing to face than a quick execution, and thus much more of a deterrent.
Simply put, I'd much rather be executed than spend the rest of my life in a prison cell.
I imagine that's why people like Raoul Moat once cornered engage in 'to the death' gun battles with police as it's preferable to prison, or why people like Fred West kill themselves once inside as the prospect of decades behind bars is too much to bear.
With Moat especially, had he known he would have gone straight to the gallows and not be facing incarceration for life then I suspect once the man-hunt started he'd not have tried to evade capture by laying low during the man-hunt, and may well have been more brazen and shot more people as he knew that if the police didn't end him the hang-man would. It was only the thought of prison that put him off and forced him into hiding, and he was willing to engage in a shoot-out once pinned down choosing death over porridge.
Me personally, if I was in the emotional state where I was considering murdering a few people, the prospect of life in prison would be much more depressing thing to face than a quick execution, and thus much more of a deterrent.
Simply put, I'd much rather be executed than spend the rest of my life in a prison cell.
I imagine that's why people like Raoul Moat once cornered engage in 'to the death' gun battles with police as it's preferable to prison, or why people like Fred West kill themselves once inside as the prospect of decades behind bars is too much to bear.
With Moat especially, had he known he would have gone straight to the gallows and not be facing incarceration for life then I suspect once the man-hunt started he'd not have tried to evade capture by laying low during the man-hunt, and may well have been more brazen and shot more people as he knew that if the police didn't end him the hang-man would. It was only the thought of prison that put him off and forced him into hiding, and he was willing to engage in a shoot-out once pinned down choosing death over porridge.
-
- Posts: 345
- Joined: 11 Apr 2010, 10:49
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;C.V wrote:Definatley how much have we waisted on Brady,Hindley,Rose West,Neilson and countless others none of them deserve to draw breath as far as l am concerned.The money waisted on them in prison could be spent on our old age pensioners who cant afford to exist.
death penalty actually costs more than life imprisonment.
Let them stew over what they've done behind bars for the rest of their lives.
I do not think that you can you can use the link to make analogies with the UK. The Judicial systems are different.
- Hubert Parry
- Posts: 2443
- Joined: 22 Jul 2011, 09:09
Having spent a good 14 hours a day for a year studying law, it is always interesting to see this being debated. A trial costs a huge amount of money and in order to secure a conviction with the consequences of execution, the trial will be longer, legal costs will be higher, and juries will be less willing to convict (this should not be the case, as they must be beyond all reasonable doubt before convicting anyone of any crime, but it humans will be less naturally inclined to condemn someone to death) meaning that some murderers could get off on a technicality. Furthermore, trials at first instance will always be appealed where the death penalty has been granted, which will require the higher courts to be involved and further wasting tax payers money in separate attempts to quash the sentence.
This is before you even consider human rights arguments, which are completely valid and have been discussed above. However, the state should have the power to end the life of another. In my view, a civilised society should always show compassion to those who have refused such compassion to their victims; ultimately, it is what separates us from them.
This is before you even consider human rights arguments, which are completely valid and have been discussed above. However, the state should have the power to end the life of another. In my view, a civilised society should always show compassion to those who have refused such compassion to their victims; ultimately, it is what separates us from them.
- Hubert Parry
- Posts: 2443
- Joined: 22 Jul 2011, 09:09
Not true, the death penalty was absolutely abolished in 2004 to conform with the European Convention (up to that point, wartime was a justifiable reason for exercising the death penalty). The only way that the UK can reintroduce the death penalty is to withdraw from the Convention.
Its not a question of death penalty yes or no? It should also be a question of 10 years should mean 10 years (not 6 on good behaviour). Life should mean life (not 15 years and out on good behaviour) etc. If someone behaves in prison then release them after their sentence, if they dont behave, causing fights, riots etc, then charge them, trial them and extend their sentence.
Also, prisons should be just that - not holiday camps with a bit of work thrown in, no teles, no luxuries.
Also, prisons should be just that - not holiday camps with a bit of work thrown in, no teles, no luxuries.
-
- Posts: 29824
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Depends on your view on rehabilitating and preparing people to be functional and contribute to society on release.TechSupport wrote:Its not a question of death penalty yes or no? It should also be a question of 10 years should mean 10 years (not 6 on good behaviour). Life should mean life (not 15 years and out on good behaviour) etc. If someone behaves in prison then release them after their sentence, if they dont behave, causing fights, riots etc, then charge them, trial them and extend their sentence.
Also, prisons should be just that - not holiday camps with a bit of work thrown in, no teles, no luxuries.
Not saying it's my view as it's a difficult thing to balance.
Perhaps have work in prison, and those who work well get credits for TVs and luxuries etc - behaviour which would be encouraged upon release.
Also, ending the bent prison guard corruption rings would be useful. If crooked guards are happy to help supply drugs etc then no prisoner is going to be reformed or have behaviour to aspire to - though I guess that counts as a luxury.
Before the usual suspects rant on at me, I am not saying we should keep prisons comfortable or let people our early as prison is supposed to be a deterrent to offending in the first instance. It also needs to make sure people who are released don't re-offend.
I can see and accept that point of view RCS. I still think however that the sentence given should be that which is served or perhaps the victim (if any) gets to be on the parole hearing
-
- Posts: 29824
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
I agreed with you......?TechSupport wrote:I can see and accept that point of view RCS. I still think however that the sentence given should be that which is served or perhaps the victim (if any) gets to be on the parole hearing
To further HPs point, we should get rid of parole as that costs money as well - every sentence issued must be served in full as you say.
Though we'd have to build more prisons as I'm sure a lot of early-release is to relieve overcrowding.
Yes you did agree - sorry - misread it to begin with.
Re the relieving overcrowding, I expect you are right, but if prison was a proper deterrent, ie you knew you would have to serve the whole sentence, no luxuries (unless earnt as you suggested), etc then perhaps it may make some (not all) think twice about committing a crime. Now that would go some way to relieving overcrowding. The other think is perhaps we can ship them off somewhere...a big island in the middle of no where..what about Australia
Re the relieving overcrowding, I expect you are right, but if prison was a proper deterrent, ie you knew you would have to serve the whole sentence, no luxuries (unless earnt as you suggested), etc then perhaps it may make some (not all) think twice about committing a crime. Now that would go some way to relieving overcrowding. The other think is perhaps we can ship them off somewhere...a big island in the middle of no where..what about Australia
-
- Posts: 29824
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Their cricket team is getting worse - could do with another batch of convicts to make the next 100 years of the Ashes exciting again I must say.TechSupport wrote:Yes you did agree - sorry - misread it to begin with.
Re the relieving overcrowding, I expect you are right, but if prison was a proper deterrent, ie you knew you would have to serve the whole sentence, no luxuries (unless earnt as you suggested), etc then perhaps it may make some (not all) think twice about committing a crime. Now that would go some way to relieving overcrowding. The other think is perhaps we can ship them off somewhere...a big island in the middle of no where..what about Australia
No problem re: the misread - seems to happen a lot on this forum