Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: CusworthRovers on July 18, 2010, 09:22:54 am
-
As we are in the season of thought provoking threads:
Sutty will be interned indefinitely.
Is this fair? How about the other murderers who serve a lot less or serve their life sentence and then get released. Is it the fault of the media for over-hyping these killers and causing public fear. Should all murderers serve life, meaning life?
-
CusworthRovers wrote:
As we are in the season of thought provoking threads:
Sutty will be interned indefinitely.
Is this fair? How about the other murderers who serve a lot less or serve their life sentence and then get released. Is it the fault of the media for over-hyping these killers and causing public fear. Should all murderers serve life, meaning life?
Life should mean life!
-
Is that for all murders or just those that have been sentenced to life?
I do agree by the way
-
CusworthRovers wrote:
Is that for all murders or just those that have been sentenced to life?
I do agree by the way
My opinion is they should serve the length of sentence in full that they have been given.
Also anyone convicted of Murder by terrorism should be executed!
-
So, if we get to \"Life should mean Life\" do we then go to the stage of suggesting that Mr Sutcliffe shouldn't have his creature comforts?
I'm aware that the loss of liberty is a huge punishment but if a lifer is then allowed to earn privileges does that run to TV, MP3, fridge & conjugal visits?
Looking at this from another angle, who would wish to be on the committee that put Peter back into society?
Or how about \"He killed at least 13 women & tried to kill at least 8 more, he should be put to death because he is costing this country a fortune to keep.\"
I'm happy that this bloke will (as per a recent ruling) never walk our streets again, but I'm a touch disappointed that in times where we are being asked to tighten our belts people like Sutcliffe don't appear to be doing their bit, particularly as there will probably be some further legal aid type appeal regarding his lack of \"minimum term\".
-
Ian H wrote:
So, if we get to \"Life should mean Life\" do we then go to the stage of suggesting that Mr Sutcliffe shouldn't have his creature comforts?
I'm aware that the loss of liberty is a huge punishment but if a lifer is then allowed to earn privileges does that run to TV, MP3, fridge & conjugal visits?]/b]
Looking at this from another angle, who would wish to be on the committee that put Peter back into society?
Or how about \"He killed at least 13 women & tried to kill at least 8 more, he should be put to death because he is costing this country a fortune to keep.\"
I'm happy that this bloke will (as per a recent ruling) never walk our streets again, but I'm a touch disappointed that in times where we are being asked to tighten our belts people like Sutcliffe don't appear to be doing their bit, particularly as there will probably be some further legal aid type appeal regarding his lack of \"minimum term\".
They should have no comforts or privilages!
-
agreed life should mean life not the poxy sentences they get for what they do, i know haveing been on the recieving end, after losing a brother to such a pathetic system.
how can you be sentenced to life but then be allwed paroll after 14 1/2 years, i for one say on my part after losing my brother life should mean life and if it is a clear cut case wht stop at that, the criminal system does not work or teach them a lesson, capital punishment, public ridicule will teach some!!
-
paul5857 wrote:
if it is a clear cut case wht stop at that, the criminal system does not work or teach them a lesson, capital punishment, public ridicule will teach some!!
The Guildford Four, The Birmingham Six, The Bridgewater Four, Stefan Kisko, Barry George, Stephen Downing, Sally Clark and Angela Cannings were all clear cut cases. They were all convicted, after all.
I presume you'd have been happy to string them up?
-
Glyn_Wigley wrote:
paul5857 wrote:
if it is a clear cut case wht stop at that, the criminal system does not work or teach them a lesson, capital punishment, public ridicule will teach some!!
The Guildford Four, The Birmingham Six, The Bridgewater Four, Stefan Kisko, Barry George, Stephen Downing, Sally Clark and Angela Cannings were all clear cut cases. They were all convicted, after all.
I presume you'd have been happy to string them up?
If you take someone's life, then in my opiniono life should mean life. And you shouldn't be given the luxury of television, internet access, games console's either.
Those connected to mass scale murder such as 7/7 should be executed as far as i'm concerned.
-
To answer the original question, it depends on the case whether a murderer should serve life for the crime they have committed. For people such as Sutcliffe, then they should be behind bars because his crimes really are heinous, but what about somebody who has murdered because of severe provocation such as domestic disputes - battered wife etc? For me there are different types of murderers, the cold blooded ones and those that murder because of being under duress. The victims families should also be considered when sentencing is being given - they deserve justice because in their own way, they are living a life sentence because of someone's actions and if the authorities lose sight of that, then surely people would lose what faith they have in the judicial system.
-
Pintolager wrote:
To answer the original question, it depends on the case whether a murderer should serve life for the crime they have committed. For people such as Sutcliffe, then they should be behind bars because his crimes really are heinous, but what about somebody who has murdered because of severe provocation such as domestic disputes - battered wife etc? For me there are different types of murderers, the cold blooded ones and those that murder because of being under duress. The victims families should also be considered when sentencing is being given - they deserve justice because in their own way, they are living a life sentence because of someone's actions and if the authorities lose sight of that, then surely people would lose what faith they have in the judicial system.
That's where the definitions of Murder an Manslaughter come into play - no two crimes are identical and the British judicial system, despite some failings is on the whole excellent at defining the different shades of grey in a case right down to the judge's summing up and sentencing.
In cases involving a finite sentence I firmly believe that tax money is well spent in education and programmes to discourage reoffending, particularly anti-gang initiatives in today's society. In the long run this should save the financial and emotional cost of further offences.
I would like to see harsher punishments for reoffending though. You can't keep giving carrots without the threat of the stick. I recently read about a pair of female lovers who battered a man to death after he made a pass at one of them. The main protagonist already had over EIGHTY criminal convictions. I don't care what these convictions were for; nobody should be at large in public if they are such a serial and habitual menace.
In cases such as Sutcliffe's where there is no chance of being released, any money spent on creature comforts or rehabilitation is wasted. A bare cell with the minimum of sustenance is more than adequate. I would stop short of capital punishment but I don't see why the taxpayers should have to foot the bills for keeping depraved killers in comfort.
-
eye for an eye, if you kill/murder somebody or bodys then
it should be the death sentence for your crimes end of.
now the justice system will have to be brought upto a higher and better level in order to give somebody the death penalty.
as pointed out bham six amongst others were later deemed not guilty.
if not death sentence then life should mean life.its all these stupid fcuk wits on the outside who start asking for life sentences to be reduced for whatever reasons.
you get pillocks doing studys saying that person X is no longer a threat to the public and should be let out....
my arse they should be let out,where is the justice in that
-
Filo wrote:
CusworthRovers wrote:
Is that for all murders or just those that have been sentenced to life?
I do agree by the way
My opinion is they should serve the length of sentence in full that they have been given.
Also anyone convicted of Murder by terrorism should be executed!
Define \"terrorism\".
Would you have executed Mandela? Or McGuinness? And presumably, you'd have executed the Para who murdered the folk in Londonderry on Bloody Sunday? What was that if it wasn't \"terrorism\"?
-
oslorovers wrote:
eye for an eye, if you kill/murder somebody or bodys then
it should be the death sentence for your crimes end of.
now the justice system will have to be brought upto a higher and better level in order to give somebody the death penalty.
as pointed out bham six amongst others were later deemed not guilty.
if not death sentence then life should mean life.its all these stupid fcuk wits on the outside who start asking for life sentences to be reduced for whatever reasons.
you get pillocks doing studys saying that person X is no longer a threat to the public and should be let out....
my arse they should be let out,where is the justice in that
Nice logic.
I guess the t**t doing 60mph in a 30 zone who hit my wife's kid brother on a pavement and left him brain damaged should have his own head stoved in to leave HIM mentally affected as well?
Or the bloke in a car that knocked my grandad down, breaking his leg? Presumably he should have his leg surgically broken as well?
What about someone who glasses somebody in a pub? Should we have an official \"Face Lacerator in Chief\" to legally punish them?
And we think Sharia Law is medieval? Some of the bloodlust folk from our culture are a lot closer to the Muslims' outlook than they would care to admit.
-
The biggest issue I have with this is the strength of the conviction. Glyn has listed a number of convictions that were considered sound at the time but subsequently proved to be wrong. As long as we don't have 100% confidence in someone's guilt we can't really push for the death sentence.
Anyone who admits to a crime could later claim to be mentally disturbed either at the time or at a later date - do we execute people with mental deficiencies?
Of course there are those that are pure evil and probably deserve execution, but the argument would always be that to determine someone is evil without having mental issues is impossible.
Trying to catagorise serial killers is a tricky one. Clearly evil, but at the same time clearly nobody in their right mind would do what they have done - which makes them mentally deficient.
For me, if we could be confident that someone has committed a murder then I would restore the death penalty (ie for those caught with DNA and video evidence where there can be no mistake, such as a robbery gone wrong etc). The penal system needs a shake up, where sentences should be completed in full. If that means a re-assessment of the way sentences are passed then so be it.
Getting out early for good behaviour is bullshit, I would extend the sentences of those that don't behave rather than reduce sentences of those that do.
-
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
Filo wrote:
CusworthRovers wrote:
Is that for all murders or just those that have been sentenced to life?
I do agree by the way
My opinion is they should serve the length of sentence in full that they have been given.
Also anyone convicted of Murder by terrorism should be executed!
Define \"terrorism\".
Would you have executed Mandela? Or McGuinness? And presumably, you'd have executed the Para who murdered the folk in Londonderry on Bloody Sunday? What was that if it wasn't \"terrorism\"?
Why define it? It is what it is.
-
Filo wrote:
CusworthRovers wrote:
As we are in the season of thought provoking threads:
Sutty will be interned indefinitely.
Is this fair? How about the other murderers who serve a lot less or serve their life sentence and then get released. Is it the fault of the media for over-hyping these killers and causing public fear. Should all murderers serve life, meaning life?
Life should mean life!
Shame they dont apply that to Martin McGuinness / Gerry Adams etc etc
-
BST a bit extreme there fella but loons like yorkshire ripper,
terrorists would fall into the eye for a eye preference.
-
Life should mean life and without any of the extra privelidges. Ian Huntley is living the life of riley with a suite of rooms, all the latest games and games machines, and costing the texpayer a bindle. They should all have to share their cells like other criminals. They are happy to do the crime, so should beprepared to do the time. They know how overcrowded the prisons are and so if they are prepared to take the risk of doing the crime they should put up with whatever hardships their time in prison means. Victims don't have that option!
-
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
Filo wrote:
CusworthRovers wrote:
Is that for all murders or just those that have been sentenced to life?
I do agree by the way
My opinion is they should serve the length of sentence in full that they have been given.
Also anyone convicted of Murder by terrorism should be executed!
Define \"terrorism\".
Would you have executed Mandela? Or McGuinness? And presumably, you'd have executed the Para who murdered the folk in Londonderry on Bloody Sunday? What was that if it wasn't \"terrorism\"?
Mandela was never under the British judicial system, was Mcguinness ever convicted of Murder? and the Para was a member of the armed forces under a higher command in a civil disorder situation (this in no way condones the actions on bloody Sunday). My original statement meant anyone convicted of murder by terrorism should be executed
-
kittyslass wrote:
Life should mean life and without any of the extra privelidges. Ian Huntley is living the life of riley with a suite of rooms, all the latest games and games machines, and costing the texpayer a bindle. They should all have to share their cells like other criminals. They are happy to do the crime, so should beprepared to do the time. They know how overcrowded the prisons are and so if they are prepared to take the risk of doing the crime they should put up with whatever hardships their time in prison means. Victims don't have that option!
Now he is one cnut I would like to see tortured the extreme and then tossed to the dogs.
-
if the cases are clear cut then yes, my opinion comes from losing my brother who was stabbed 35 times, the sentence given to the killer was life however parole ws possible after 14 years...but then i suppose that is the justice sysyem, so yes i do think that if a case is clear cut as this one was then yes i would gladly pull the lever myself !
-
CusworthRovers wrote:
As we are in the season of thought provoking threads:
Sutty will be interned indefinitely.
Is this fair? How about the other murderers who serve a lot less or serve their life sentence and then get released. Is it the fault of the media for over-hyping these killers and causing public fear. Should all murderers serve life, meaning life?
Multiple killers like this monster should be locked up for life, or preferably executed. End of. Other murderers have to be looked at individually, reasons,provocation etc.
-
MrFrost wrote:
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
Filo wrote:
CusworthRovers wrote:
Is that for all murders or just those that have been sentenced to life?
I do agree by the way
My opinion is they should serve the length of sentence in full that they have been given.
Also anyone convicted of Murder by terrorism should be executed!
Define \"terrorism\".
Would you have executed Mandela? Or McGuinness? And presumably, you'd have executed the Para who murdered the folk in Londonderry on Bloody Sunday? What was that if it wasn't \"terrorism\"?
Why define it? It is what it is.
Ahh, sorry again. This is another one of those things that other folk understand easily but I'm too thick to follow. Do enlighten me. Was Mandela an executable terrorist?
-
Regarding Mandela, despite agreeing with the reasons for his actions (i.e. standing up against an oppressive regime) and having a lot of respect for the way he conducted himself with humility upon his release and in the years since I do still class him as a terrorist.
Many innocent people died at his command which is unforgivable. I've already stated that I don't agree with capital punishment (an opinion which has changed over the last decade) but I have a real problem with the way Mandela is lauded as an angelic character.
If working with the likes of Mandela, McGuinness et al is the price we pay for many millions of people living safer lives then it is worth paying but these people have blood on their hands and we can never forget that.
-
paul5857 wrote:
if the cases are clear cut then yes, my opinion comes from losing my brother who was stabbed 35 times, the sentence given to the killer was life however parole ws possible after 14 years...but then i suppose that is the justice sysyem, so yes i do think that if a case is clear cut as this one was then yes i would gladly pull the lever myself !
All the cases I listed earlier in this thread were clear cut. They were convicted. Are you saying you'd have happily pulled the lever on them?
-
Filo wrote:
My original statement meant anyone convicted of murder by terrorism should be executed
So you'd have happily hung ten innocent people (Birmingham Six, Guildford Four) then?
Nice.
-
if the cases are clear cut then yes, my opinion comes from losing my brother who was stabbed 35 times, the sentence given to the killer was life however parole ws possible after 14 years...but then i suppose that is the justice system, so yes i do think that if a case is clear cut as this one was then yes i would gladly pull the lever myself !
All the cases I listed earlier in this thread were clear cut. They were convicted. Are you saying you'd have happily pulled the lever on them?
My View: I could never find a reason to work with the criminal justice system enough to be responsible for one incorrect execution. I understand how people get dragged into \"Clear Cut\" but even if they were caught on camera signing on to the murder with a Passport and two different forms of identification (a utility bill is not suitable) I couldn't quite believe enough to push the plunger (or whatever).
I used to think that castration (chemical or physical) wouldn't be a bad option but I've mellowed a bit.
-
I used to favour the return of capital punishment because of the powerful deterrent effect. I still believe that fewer people would carry weapons (knives in particular) if their use could land them on the gallows. However, the number of cases where there have been serious miscarriages of justice (Glyn has outlined a few) have made me reconsider.
However- for murder I do think that life should mean life. Whether there should be categories of murder, with perhaps one carrying a whole life tarrif and the other carrying one of, say, 20 years is perhaps a subject that needs further debate.
-
Glyn_Wigley wrote:
Filo wrote:
My original statement meant anyone convicted of murder by terrorism should be executed
So you'd have happily hung ten innocent people (Birmingham Six, Guildford Four) then?
Nice.
Look at the flip. Would you say someone like Ian Huntley doesn't deserve the death penalty?
-
MrFrost wrote:
Glyn_Wigley wrote:
Filo wrote:
My original statement meant anyone convicted of murder by terrorism should be executed
So you'd have happily hung ten innocent people (Birmingham Six, Guildford Four) then?
Nice.
Look at the flip. Would you say someone like Ian Huntley doesn't deserve the death penalty?
Yes. Becasue I don't want to have the same disregard for human life that he does. Are you one of those people with ambivalent morals who purport not to be able to bear what he did, but would do it to him?
Now that we've looked at the flip, how about going back and answering my question instead of trying to deflect it?
-
Glyn_Wigley wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
Glyn_Wigley wrote:
Filo wrote:
My original statement meant anyone convicted of murder by terrorism should be executed
So you'd have happily hung ten innocent people (Birmingham Six, Guildford Four) then?
Nice.
Look at the flip. Would you say someone like Ian Huntley doesn't deserve the death penalty?
Yes. Becasue I don't want to have the same disregard for human life that he does. Are you one of those people with ambivalent morals who purport not to be able to bear what he did, but would do it to him?
Now that we've looked at the flip, how about going back and answering my question instead of trying to deflect it?
Look at the top of this page. He's answered already. The irony is clearly lost.
The death penalty has numerous fundamental flaws. One of them has been mentioned here, the uncertainty in the process of conviction. A second is that it doesn't work as a deterrent - a murder committed due to passion, insanity, drugs/drink or sheer evilness is hardly likely to be prevented by the thought of the noose. Would it have stopped Huntley or Sutcliffe? Of course not
Which brings us round to the biggest reason why we should bever have the death penalty again. It is not about deterrent. It wouldn't save a single cjild from being raped and butchered, copper from being killed or terrorist bomb from being planted. It is about the basest form of retribution. Civillised society keeps a lid on the sort of bestial bloodlust that Mr Frost describes at the top of this page.
Of course, if you believe in eye-for-eye justice and think people who believe otherwise are namby pamby bleeding heart pinkos, you can always move to a country and a society that more closely matches your views on justice and retribution.
Iran for example.
-
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
Glyn_Wigley wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
Glyn_Wigley wrote:
Filo wrote:
My original statement meant anyone convicted of murder by terrorism should be executed
So you'd have happily hung ten innocent people (Birmingham Six, Guildford Four) then?
Nice.
Look at the flip. Would you say someone like Ian Huntley doesn't deserve the death penalty?
Yes. Becasue I don't want to have the same disregard for human life that he does. Are you one of those people with ambivalent morals who purport not to be able to bear what he did, but would do it to him?
Now that we've looked at the flip, how about going back and answering my question instead of trying to deflect it?
Look at the top of this page. He's answered already. The irony is clearly lost.
The death penalty has numerous fundamental flaws. One of them has been mentioned here, the uncertainty in the process of conviction. A second is that it doesn't work as a deterrent - a murder committed due to passion, insanity, drugs/drink or sheer evilness is hardly likely to be prevented by the thought of the noose. Would it have stopped Huntley or Sutcliffe? Of course not
Which brings us round to the biggest reason why we should bever have the death penalty again. It is not about deterrent. It wouldn't save a single cjild from being raped and butchered, copper from being killed or terrorist bomb from being planted. It is about the basest form of retribution. Civillised society keeps a lid on the sort of bestial bloodlust that Mr Frost describes at the top of this page.
Of course, if you believe in eye-for-eye justice and think people who believe otherwise are namby pamby bleeding heart pinkos, you can always move to a country and a society that more closely matches your views on justice and retribution.
Iran for example.
Not at all. I just know how I would feel if someone did that to one of my kids. He gave up his rights to breathe the same air as us when he comiited his horrific crime.
People like him do not deserve to live. That is my opinion. Deal with it.
-
Oh joy. Another thread designed to embed positions, persuade no one and increase the blood pressure.
The death penalty, for anyone, ever, is like the Tory Party at prayer. A complete misapplication of morality.
To be trite, remind me. Who killed James Hanratty?
BobG
-
BobG wrote:
Oh joy. Another thread designed to embed positions, persuade no one and increase the blood pressure.
The death penalty, for anyone, ever, is like the Tory Party at prayer. A complete misapplication of morality.
To be trite, remind me. Who killed James Hanratty?
BobG
I think in terms of being able to prove someone committed a crime is alot easier now though Bob. It still isn't perfect, but there are cases which there is no doubt where someone is guilty.
There are monsters (like Huntley) locked up, who in my view are not paying for their crimes. I sincerely hope he gets a royal good kick in every single day he is inside for what he did.
Execution should be allowed for murderers like him. Obviously each case would have to be looked at on it's own merrit. But when you commit such crims as Huntley and Sutcliffe, in my view you should be prepared to pay the ultimate penalty.
-
MrFrost wrote:
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
Glyn_Wigley wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
Glyn_Wigley wrote:
Filo wrote:
My original statement meant anyone convicted of murder by terrorism should be executed
So you'd have happily hung ten innocent people (Birmingham Six, Guildford Four) then?
Nice.
Look at the flip. Would you say someone like Ian Huntley doesn't deserve the death penalty?
Yes. Becasue I don't want to have the same disregard for human life that he does. Are you one of those people with ambivalent morals who purport not to be able to bear what he did, but would do it to him?
Now that we've looked at the flip, how about going back and answering my question instead of trying to deflect it?
Look at the top of this page. He's answered already. The irony is clearly lost.
The death penalty has numerous fundamental flaws. One of them has been mentioned here, the uncertainty in the process of conviction. A second is that it doesn't work as a deterrent - a murder committed due to passion, insanity, drugs/drink or sheer evilness is hardly likely to be prevented by the thought of the noose. Would it have stopped Huntley or Sutcliffe? Of course not
Which brings us round to the biggest reason why we should bever have the death penalty again. It is not about deterrent. It wouldn't save a single cjild from being raped and butchered, copper from being killed or terrorist bomb from being planted. It is about the basest form of retribution. Civillised society keeps a lid on the sort of bestial bloodlust that Mr Frost describes at the top of this page.
Of course, if you believe in eye-for-eye justice and think people who believe otherwise are namby pamby bleeding heart pinkos, you can always move to a country and a society that more closely matches your views on justice and retribution.
Iran for example.
Not at all. I just know how I would feel if someone did that to one of my kids. He gave up his rights to breathe the same air as us when he comiited his horrific crime.
People like him do not deserve to live. That is my opinion. Deal with it.
Fine. You're living in the wrong country then. Move to somewhere where they know how to deal with this sort of issue. Like China, or Saudi Arabia, or Iran. Problem solved.
-
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
Glyn_Wigley wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
Glyn_Wigley wrote:
Filo wrote:
My original statement meant anyone convicted of murder by terrorism should be executed
So you'd have happily hung ten innocent people (Birmingham Six, Guildford Four) then?
Nice.
Look at the flip. Would you say someone like Ian Huntley doesn't deserve the death penalty?
Yes. Becasue I don't want to have the same disregard for human life that he does. Are you one of those people with ambivalent morals who purport not to be able to bear what he did, but would do it to him?
Now that we've looked at the flip, how about going back and answering my question instead of trying to deflect it?
Look at the top of this page. He's answered already. The irony is clearly lost.
The death penalty has numerous fundamental flaws. One of them has been mentioned here, the uncertainty in the process of conviction. A second is that it doesn't work as a deterrent - a murder committed due to passion, insanity, drugs/drink or sheer evilness is hardly likely to be prevented by the thought of the noose. Would it have stopped Huntley or Sutcliffe? Of course not
Which brings us round to the biggest reason why we should bever have the death penalty again. It is not about deterrent. It wouldn't save a single cjild from being raped and butchered, copper from being killed or terrorist bomb from being planted. It is about the basest form of retribution. Civillised society keeps a lid on the sort of bestial bloodlust that Mr Frost describes at the top of this page.
Of course, if you believe in eye-for-eye justice and think people who believe otherwise are namby pamby bleeding heart pinkos, you can always move to a country and a society that more closely matches your views on justice and retribution.
Iran for example.
Not at all. I just know how I would feel if someone did that to one of my kids. He gave up his rights to breathe the same air as us when he comiited his horrific crime.
People like him do not deserve to live. That is my opinion. Deal with it.
Fine. You're living in the wrong country then. Move to somewhere where they know how to deal with this sort of issue. Like China, or Saudi Arabia, or Iran. Problem solved.
Why am I living in the wrong country? Again because I have an opinion that differs to the high and mighty fcukcing BST?
You'll see, on this thread, a few others who have the same opnion, and many other millions throughout the UK will take the same stance. Would you have them leave aswell?
I think you need to realise that not everyone will have the perfect views that you claim to have. Listen to the kid on here who's brother was stabbed 30 odd times, and try telling him that the person who did it shouldn't suffer the same fate.
-
MrFrost wrote:
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
Glyn_Wigley wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
Glyn_Wigley wrote:
Filo wrote:
My original statement meant anyone convicted of murder by terrorism should be executed
So you'd have happily hung ten innocent people (Birmingham Six, Guildford Four) then?
Nice.
Look at the flip. Would you say someone like Ian Huntley doesn't deserve the death penalty?
Yes. Becasue I don't want to have the same disregard for human life that he does. Are you one of those people with ambivalent morals who purport not to be able to bear what he did, but would do it to him?
Now that we've looked at the flip, how about going back and answering my question instead of trying to deflect it?
Look at the top of this page. He's answered already. The irony is clearly lost.
The death penalty has numerous fundamental flaws. One of them has been mentioned here, the uncertainty in the process of conviction. A second is that it doesn't work as a deterrent - a murder committed due to passion, insanity, drugs/drink or sheer evilness is hardly likely to be prevented by the thought of the noose. Would it have stopped Huntley or Sutcliffe? Of course not
Which brings us round to the biggest reason why we should bever have the death penalty again. It is not about deterrent. It wouldn't save a single cjild from being raped and butchered, copper from being killed or terrorist bomb from being planted. It is about the basest form of retribution. Civillised society keeps a lid on the sort of bestial bloodlust that Mr Frost describes at the top of this page.
Of course, if you believe in eye-for-eye justice and think people who believe otherwise are namby pamby bleeding heart pinkos, you can always move to a country and a society that more closely matches your views on justice and retribution.
Iran for example.
Not at all. I just know how I would feel if someone did that to one of my kids. He gave up his rights to breathe the same air as us when he comiited his horrific crime.
People like him do not deserve to live. That is my opinion. Deal with it.
Fine. You're living in the wrong country then. Move to somewhere where they know how to deal with this sort of issue. Like China, or Saudi Arabia, or Iran. Problem solved.
Why am I living in the wrong country? Again because I have an opinion that differs to the high and mighty fcukcing BST?
You'll see, on this thread, a few others who have the same opnion, and many other millions throughout the UK will take the same stance. Would you have them leave aswell?
I think you need to realise that not everyone will have the perfect views that you claim to have. Listen to the kid on here who's brother was stabbed 30 odd times, and try telling him that the person who did it shouldn't suffer the same fate.
For once I tend to agree with Mr. Frost. Once a person has been convicted of a murder and all avenues of appeal have been exhausted, instead of giving them a so-called life sentence, they should be executed. Full stop. Save all the hundreds of thousands of pounds it would cost to keep them banged up for however long a life sentence is. Also give some salve to those who have lost loved ones in a heinous way.
-
Going to live in a Country that appreciates the death penalty is all well and good, but I would suggest many on here have lived in a country that did away with the death penalty during their lifetime or just before they were born. That is not long ago really from when we were bang at it.
MP's and learned people are still debating it and many are still in favour of it, are they wrong, as there are many educated people who feel it should be re-introduced.
Brum 6, Guildford 4 et al is back to the bad old days when we had a war with the IRA and the public wanted blood, and maybe people were dragged in to appease the public outcry. I'm still not convinced all this lot are fully innocent anyway.
As said, technology is far more advanced in proving guilt via DNA, CCTV and just simply better investigation skills.
But that said, the question is more, even with 1000% guilt would you still agree to pull the lever, administer the dosage, turn on the switch, fire the shot?
As for no deterrent, well if they hung many that they should have then it will be the greatest deterrent as they will not be doing it again. There are examples where killers have served their time and come out to do it again.
Each case would need rightly taking on its individual merits. I would argue that anything/one that is a danger to the public needs killing. I'm talking your Huntleys, Bradys, Hindleys, Sutcliffes, Nielsons et al.
If they are saying they will never be released, usually it's for the good of the public. Then why not hang them?, all we will get is a drain on public money. Brady himself as had over 40yrs of god knows how much money thrown at him.
You have to be morally right to want to hang them, I say their morals went out of the window when they kill a child or an innocent member of the public and then shatter so many lifes in doing so.
-
DNA? CCTV?
You'd kill somebody on the basis of fuzzy pictures or forensic evidence that on its own isn't enough to convict anyone of anything whatsoever?
-
MrFrost wrote:
I think in terms of being able to prove someone committed a crime is alot easier now though Bob. It still isn't perfect, but there are cases which there is no doubt where someone is guilty.
There wasn't any doubt in the cases I've listed. That's why they were convicted and would have been hung if you'd had your way.
-
Sadly even DNA isn't perfect, mistakes still happen and so much is lost in the interpretation of the evidence given..
Take the so called baby killers, innocent women who were the victims of the cruellest of circumstances, convicted on the say so of a flawed medic.... if we had the death penalty these women would have been MURDERED just as Derek Bently was murdered, for make no mistake , get it wrong, and there are far too many cases where mistakes are made and the state is commiting murder... I want no deaths in my name .. none at all.
Read Michael Mansfield's autobiography, see his thoughts on DNA and the death penalty.. Now there is a man I would love to meet..
I can fully understand why someone who has suffered such a terrible loss would want a life for a life, but, think of it like this, life should mean life, not death, for in death the killer finds a release that is never going to be afforded to the victims, their sentence will continue with no remission.
Once that killer is exicuted, he will feel nothing, he will be free.
Yes the ultimate price is paid, but then it is done. Let the huntly's and sutcliffes rot in jail. Let them never know the pleasures of freedom.. Don't free them by ending their worthless lives.
-
Glyn_Wigley wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
I think in terms of being able to prove someone committed a crime is alot easier now though Bob. It still isn't perfect, but there are cases which there is no doubt where someone is guilty.
There wasn't any doubt in the cases I've listed. That's why they were convicted and would have been hung if you'd had your way.
In that instance then, you are saying that anyone in prison could be there wrongly, and that not one person convicted has been done with 100% certainty.
-
MrFrost wrote:
Glyn_Wigley wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
I think in terms of being able to prove someone committed a crime is alot easier now though Bob. It still isn't perfect, but there are cases which there is no doubt where someone is guilty.
There wasn't any doubt in the cases I've listed. That's why they were convicted and would have been hung if you'd had your way.
In that instance then, you are saying that anyone in prison could be there wrongly, and that not one person convicted has been done with 100% certainty.
Of course! But there is always the possibility of correction in such an even.
Stefan Kiszko is a perfect example. Convicted of raping and murdering a young girl, there was absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind that he was an horrific danager to children. He is EXACTLY the sort of man that you would have (what was your phrase?) \"like to see tortured the extreme and then tossed to the dogs.\"
He was a textbook paedo killer. Socially inadequate, obese, never had a girlfriend, lived with his mother, a bit simple. Oh aye, and he was the sone of immigrants. Who would have shed tears over him being done away with?
Trouble was of course, the prosecution was flawed. The defence case was shockingly badly run, and, 20 years later, it emerged that he couldn't possibly have been the killer - he was infertile whilst the semen stains on the poor lass's clothing had fully formed sperm. He was released and compensated financially. Hardly perfect, but a damn sight better than if he'd swung from the noose.
Consider this. If he had been hung after his trial (presumably after being \"tortured to the extreme\"?), what would your reaction have been 20 years later when it emerged he was innocent?
The possibility of ONE such miscarriage is reaosn enough to be against the death penalty. If there was categorical evidence that the death penalty vastly reduced the number of murders through deterrence, I might be persuaded to think otherwise. But there isn't. It's purely about retribution and vengenace (as you earlier comments show). And that is a human instinct that needs keeping in check, because it is deeply, deeply harmful and destructive. As it would have been to Stefan Kiszko 30 years back.
EDIT:
It may or may not be a coincidence, but the shockingly inept defence of Stefan Kiszko was run by David Waddington QC/MP, a fervent believer in the death penalty, who later became Tory Home Secretary.
I wonder - did Waddington effectively believe that Kiszko was guilty and hence not perform to his usual high standards in court? Because some of the mistakes he made were things that a first year law student would pick up on.
-
MrFrost wrote:
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
Glyn_Wigley wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
Glyn_Wigley wrote:
Filo wrote:
My original statement meant anyone convicted of murder by terrorism should be executed
So you'd have happily hung ten innocent people (Birmingham Six, Guildford Four) then?
Nice.
Look at the flip. Would you say someone like Ian Huntley doesn't deserve the death penalty?
Yes. Becasue I don't want to have the same disregard for human life that he does. Are you one of those people with ambivalent morals who purport not to be able to bear what he did, but would do it to him?
Now that we've looked at the flip, how about going back and answering my question instead of trying to deflect it?
Look at the top of this page. He's answered already. The irony is clearly lost.
The death penalty has numerous fundamental flaws. One of them has been mentioned here, the uncertainty in the process of conviction. A second is that it doesn't work as a deterrent - a murder committed due to passion, insanity, drugs/drink or sheer evilness is hardly likely to be prevented by the thought of the noose. Would it have stopped Huntley or Sutcliffe? Of course not
Which brings us round to the biggest reason why we should bever have the death penalty again. It is not about deterrent. It wouldn't save a single cjild from being raped and butchered, copper from being killed or terrorist bomb from being planted. It is about the basest form of retribution. Civillised society keeps a lid on the sort of bestial bloodlust that Mr Frost describes at the top of this page.
Of course, if you believe in eye-for-eye justice and think people who believe otherwise are namby pamby bleeding heart pinkos, you can always move to a country and a society that more closely matches your views on justice and retribution.
Iran for example.
Not at all. I just know how I would feel if someone did that to one of my kids. He gave up his rights to breathe the same air as us when he comiited his horrific crime.
People like him do not deserve to live. That is my opinion. Deal with it.
Fine. You're living in the wrong country then. Move to somewhere where they know how to deal with this sort of issue. Like China, or Saudi Arabia, or Iran. Problem solved.
Why am I living in the wrong country? Again because I have an opinion that differs to the high and mighty fcukcing BST?
You'll see, on this thread, a few others who have the same opnion, and many other millions throughout the UK will take the same stance. Would you have them leave aswell?
I think you need to realise that not everyone will have the perfect views that you claim to have. Listen to the kid on here who's brother was stabbed 30 odd times, and try telling him that the person who did it shouldn't suffer the same fate.
There's a big difference between us here. Your posts, time and again show that you are incapable or unwilling to see the general picture, preferring to draw your conclusions from the specific and the personal. That's fine. It's just an approach that I honestly and profoundly disagree with.
I cannot sympathise enough with the bloke on here whose brother was stabbed. That must have been an horrific experience to go through. I can fully appreciate that someone in that situation would crave vengeance. My instinct was the same when my wife's tall, handsome, intelligent, sporty 13 year old cousion was knocked down by a hit and run driver who left him in a coma and eventually brain damaged.
I mention this case not as a sob story, but to show that you can have experience of someone who you care deeply for having their life being wrecked by the actions of others, and still not wish to see society regress to an eye-for-an-eye level where violence breeds violence. (Although, going on past experience, you'll believe not a word of it of course and reply by telling me what I ACTUALLY think...)
As a society, we (thankfully) don't build our justice system around a blood-lust vendetta approach. That solves nothing. It demeans and debases society. That's why only so few civillized democratic societies now have the death penalty, and the ones that DO have it (America, Japan, Singapore) are either bordeline non-totalitarian state (Singapore) or have serious and systemic violence issues in their society, to a far greater extent than we do (America, Japan). Other countries where the death penalty is frequently used are ones that we would look down on as being significantly less developed societies than our own (China, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Sudan etc). Do you want to look to them as role models?
-
CusworthRovers wrote:
Going to live in a Country that appreciates the death penalty is all well and good, but I would suggest many on here have lived in a country that did away with the death penalty during their lifetime or just before they were born. That is not long ago really from when we were bang at it.
MP's and learned people are still debating it and many are still in favour of it, are they wrong, as there are many educated people who feel it should be re-introduced.
Brum 6, Guildford 4 et al is back to the bad old days when we had a war with the IRA and the public wanted blood, and maybe people were dragged in to appease the public outcry. I'm still not convinced all this lot are fully innocent anyway.
As said, technology is far more advanced in proving guilt via DNA, CCTV and just simply better investigation skills.
But that said, the question is more, even with 1000% guilt would you still agree to pull the lever, administer the dosage, turn on the switch, fire the shot?
As for no deterrent, well if they hung many that they should have then it will be the greatest deterrent as they will not be doing it again. There are examples where killers have served their time and come out to do it again.
Each case would need rightly taking on its individual merits. I would argue that anything/one that is a danger to the public needs killing. I'm talking your Huntleys, Bradys, Hindleys, Sutcliffes, Nielsons et al.
If they are saying they will never be released, usually it's for the good of the public. Then why not hang them?, all we will get is a drain on public money. Brady himself as had over 40yrs of god knows how much money thrown at him.
You have to be morally right to want to hang them, I say their morals went out of the window when they kill a child or an innocent member of the public and then shatter so many lifes in doing so.
Good points Cussy. The money one is a non-issue though. Detailed studies in the States have shown that it typically costs between 2-5 times as much to execute a prisoner as it does to keep him inside for life. That's because of the special facilities required, and even moreso, because of the drawn out appeals and re-assessment process.
So, if you want to save money, you have two choices - either don't bring in the death penalty, or do it with a fast-track, limited appeals time process. Which would be pretty much guaranteed to result in numerous mis-carriages of justive and wrongful executions.
-
MrFrost wrote:
Glyn_Wigley wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
I think in terms of being able to prove someone committed a crime is alot easier now though Bob. It still isn't perfect, but there are cases which there is no doubt where someone is guilty.
There wasn't any doubt in the cases I've listed. That's why they were convicted and would have been hung if you'd had your way.
In that instance then, you are saying that anyone in prison could be there wrongly, and that not one person convicted has been done with 100% certainty.
What's your definition of '100% certainty'?
And what would you do in the cases where your definition of '100% certainty' isn't met - bearing mind that people are either 'Guilty' or 'Not Guilty'? There's not such thing as 'Slightly Guilty', nor can you imprison somebody on the basis that you think they're guilty, but you're not certain enough of their guilt to hang them.
-
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
Glyn_Wigley wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
Glyn_Wigley wrote:
Filo wrote:
My original statement meant anyone convicted of murder by terrorism should be executed
So you'd have happily hung ten innocent people (Birmingham Six, Guildford Four) then?
Nice.
Look at the flip. Would you say someone like Ian Huntley doesn't deserve the death penalty?
Yes. Becasue I don't want to have the same disregard for human life that he does. Are you one of those people with ambivalent morals who purport not to be able to bear what he did, but would do it to him?
Now that we've looked at the flip, how about going back and answering my question instead of trying to deflect it?
Look at the top of this page. He's answered already. The irony is clearly lost.
The death penalty has numerous fundamental flaws. One of them has been mentioned here, the uncertainty in the process of conviction. A second is that it doesn't work as a deterrent - a murder committed due to passion, insanity, drugs/drink or sheer evilness is hardly likely to be prevented by the thought of the noose. Would it have stopped Huntley or Sutcliffe? Of course not
Which brings us round to the biggest reason why we should bever have the death penalty again. It is not about deterrent. It wouldn't save a single cjild from being raped and butchered, copper from being killed or terrorist bomb from being planted. It is about the basest form of retribution. Civillised society keeps a lid on the sort of bestial bloodlust that Mr Frost describes at the top of this page.
Of course, if you believe in eye-for-eye justice and think people who believe otherwise are namby pamby bleeding heart pinkos, you can always move to a country and a society that more closely matches your views on justice and retribution.
Iran for example.
Not at all. I just know how I would feel if someone did that to one of my kids. He gave up his rights to breathe the same air as us when he comiited his horrific crime.
People like him do not deserve to live. That is my opinion. Deal with it.
Fine. You're living in the wrong country then. Move to somewhere where they know how to deal with this sort of issue. Like China, or Saudi Arabia, or Iran. Problem solved.
Why am I living in the wrong country? Again because I have an opinion that differs to the high and mighty fcukcing BST?
You'll see, on this thread, a few others who have the same opnion, and many other millions throughout the UK will take the same stance. Would you have them leave aswell?
I think you need to realise that not everyone will have the perfect views that you claim to have. Listen to the kid on here who's brother was stabbed 30 odd times, and try telling him that the person who did it shouldn't suffer the same fate.
There's a big difference between us here. Your posts, time and again show that you are incapable or unwilling to see the general picture, preferring to draw your conclusions from the specific and the personal. That's fine. It's just an approach that I honestly and profoundly disagree with.
I cannot sympathise enough with the bloke on here whose brother was stabbed. That must have been an horrific experience to go through. I can fully appreciate that someone in that situation would crave vengeance. My instinct was the same when my wife's tall, handsome, intelligent, sporty 13 year old cousion was knocked down by a hit and run driver who left him in a coma and eventually brain damaged.
I mention this case not as a sob story, but to show that you can have experience of someone who you care deeply for having their life being wrecked by the actions of others, and still not wish to see society regress to an eye-for-an-eye level where violence breeds violence. (Although, going on past experience, you'll believe not a word of it of course and reply by telling me what I ACTUALLY think...)
As a society, we (thankfully) don't build our justice system around a blood-lust vendetta approach. That solves nothing. It demeans and debases society. That's why only so few civillized democratic societies now have the death penalty, and the ones that DO have it (America, Japan, Singapore) are either bordeline non-totalitarian state (Singapore) or have serious and systemic violence issues in their society, to a far greater extent than we do (America, Japan). Other countries where the death penalty is frequently used are ones that we would look down on as being significantly less developed societies than our own (China, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Sudan etc). Do you want to look to them as role models?
Good points. One's of which bring debate to the question.
However, my opinion is what it is. Although I can see arguments for and against the death penalty.
In the real world however, the death penalty won't be intoroduced in this country, so maybe it is easy to say \"bring it back\".
I would certainly be pushing for life to mean life in the cases of Huntley etc. And I certainly wouldn't let him have any of life's luxuries. A matress and a couple of bowls of gruel a day should suffice.
-
Whilst I am definitely against the death penalty, I wouldn't mind, for certain categories of prisoner, hard labour to be brought back. On treadmills, providing electricity to power the prison. Anything above basic provisions has to be earnt on the treadmill.
-
Glyn_Wigley wrote:
Whilst I am definitely against the death penalty, I wouldn't mind, for certain categories of prisoner, hard labour to be brought back. On treadmills, providing electricity to power the prison. Anything above basic provisions has to be earnt on the treadmill.
:laugh:
Now that would be good. You could nearly turn it into a reality TV programme. How about a convicts version of Gladiators?
-
MrFrost wrote:
Glyn_Wigley wrote:
Whilst I am definitely against the death penalty, I wouldn't mind, for certain categories of prisoner, hard labour to be brought back. On treadmills, providing electricity to power the prison. Anything above basic provisions has to be earnt on the treadmill.
:laugh:
Now that would be good. You could nearly turn it into a reality TV programme. How about a convicts version of Gladiators?
Now this is where you and others who take the emotional course go the wrong way. Justice has to be the same punishments for people convicted of the same crimes - everybody treated equally. Turning it into a reality TV show destroys that concept.
Once you allow anyone outside the judiciary any say in how one particular convict is punished, the concept of justice flies out of the window, as they will not be punished the same as someone else convicted of the same crime. It's the rule of the mob, just at different level of dilution. It's basically the same as having prisoners in the stocks, receiving different amounts of punichment based purely on the vagaries of the crowd.
-
My god, there are enough maniacs and wierdos on the tv now...(how much longer does Big Bro run for?) :laugh:
I too am are in favour of hard labour that can put something back into the world.
Life should mean life, the hardest thing after having some one you love stolen from you by anothers hand has to be knowing that their life is only worth as in the case of say Philip Lawrence, a fourteen year sentence..
By all means don't let a case go dormant if there is even the slightest question that it is a wrongful imprisonment... If only we knew how many innocent men and women are incarcerated I think we would probably be horrified.
-
Glyn_Wigley wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
Glyn_Wigley wrote:
Whilst I am definitely against the death penalty, I wouldn't mind, for certain categories of prisoner, hard labour to be brought back. On treadmills, providing electricity to power the prison. Anything above basic provisions has to be earnt on the treadmill.
:laugh:
Now that would be good. You could nearly turn it into a reality TV programme. How about a convicts version of Gladiators?
Now this is where you and others who take the emotional course go the wrong way. Justice has to be the same punishments for people convicted of the same crimes - everybody treated equally. Turning it into a reality TV show destroys that concept.
Once you allow anyone outside the judiciary any say in how one particular convict is punished, the concept of justice flies out of the window, as they will not be punished the same as someone else convicted of the same crime. It's the rule of the mob, just at different level of dilution. It's basically the same as having prisoners in the stocks, receiving different amounts of punichment based purely on the vagaries of the crowd.
Chill out pal, it was a bit light hearted. Of course I don't expect a real life version of the Running Man on our screen's, however entertaining it may be!
-
I know you were being lighthearted, but the point still needed to be made because of the all the emotion-led stuff in the thread.
-
I don't agree all murderers should get the same. Some murderers should get life in prison and stay there. There are murderers who many would suggest are of no threat to the public as a whole (although one would deem all murderers are a danger as are other types of offenders).
There are murderers who are simply maniacs and a menace to society and deserve no right on this earth.
My opinion on the above will not change and will always remain my opinion, although happy to discuss.
Are you all happy for the likes of Huntly, Brady, Sutcliffe et al who are all 100% guilty to live the rest of their lifes in some form of luxury, whereas the victims and the victims families and friends continue their life sentence of emotional tragedy.
I would not lose any sleep if any of the above were hung in the next 5 minutes, and to be honest I doubt many would.
-
CusworthRovers wrote:
I don't agree all murderers should get the same. Some murderers should get life in prison and stay there. There are murderers who many would suggest are of no threat to the public as a whole (although one would deem all murderers are a danger as are other types of offenders).
There are murderers who are simply maniacs and a menace to society and deserve no right on this earth.
My opinion on the above will not change and will always remain my opinion, although happy to discuss.
Are you all happy for the likes of Huntly, Brady, Sutcliffe et al who are all 100% guilty to live the rest of their lifes in some form of luxury, whereas the victims and the victims families and friends continue their life sentence of emotional tragedy.
I would not lose any sleep if any of the above were hung in the next 5 minutes, and to be honest I doubt many would.
You forgot to add Stefan Kiszko to your list.
-
Then so be it.
As of now, would you campaign for messers Brady, Huntly, Sutcliffe not be hanged if it was passed today that they should be hung tomorrow
-
Yes. Just because I don't want to be dragged down to their level.
-
CusworthRovers wrote:
Then so be it.
As of now, would you campaign for messers Brady, Huntly, Sutcliffe not be hanged if it was passed today that they should be hung tomorrow
I would campaign fervently against the death penalty full stop, for all the reasons I've given.
Now. Think very carefully about what you have said. Do you really think the existemce of the death penalty would have stopped Brady, Sutcliffe or Huntley? of course not. So it's not about deterrence, it's about vengeance. And what you are saying is that you would be perfectly content to see an innocent man die as an unfortunate side effect of satisfying your desire for judicial vengeance.
I struggle to see how any civillized person can really, truly accept that argument if they take time to reflect on it.
-
BST - It worries me that most of the people who call for the death penalty seem to think it would give them some sort of personal satisfaction.
-
Glyn_Wigley wrote:
BST - It worries me that most of the people who call for the death penalty seem to think it would give them some sort of personal satisfaction.
Which is why my suggestion that they consider Sharia Law wasn't flippant. I mean, if it's vengeance that they are after, why stop at a lethal injection? Why not have public stonings where we can all join in?
-
I think Crass got it right thirty years ago:
Crass - Mother Earth
\"Now that the sun have vowed is light
And bid the world good night;
To the soft bed my body I dispose,
But where were shall my soul repose?
Mother? Mother? Mother? Mother? Mother? Mother?
Mother? Mother? Mother? Mother? Mother? Mother?
Mother? Mother? Mother? Mother? Mother? Mother?
Mother? She's the anti-mother, mommy is that you?
She's the anti-mother, mother, mother is that you?
It's Myra Hindley on the cover,
Your very own sweet anti-mother.
There she is on the pages of The Star,
Ain't that just the place you wish you were?
Let her rot in hell is what you said,
Let her rot, let her starve, you'd see her dead.
Let her out but don't forget to tell you where she is,
The chance to screw her is a chance you wouldn't miss.
Let her suffer, give her pain is the verdict you gave,
You just can't wait to piss on her grave.
You pretend that you're horrified, make out that you care,
But really you wish that you had been there.
You say you can't bear the thought of what she did,
But you'd do it to her, you'd see her dead.
Tell me, what is the difference between her and you?
You say that you would kill her, well, what else would you do?
Don't you see that violence has no end? Isn't limited by rules?
Don't you see as angels preaching you're nothing but the fools?
Fools step in, where angels fear to tread,
You see, to kill others is the ethic of the dead.
She's the anti-mother, mommy is that you?
She's the anti-mother, mother, mother is that you?
That single mug shot from the past
Ensures your fantasy can last and last.
It gives you the chance to air your hate
Because she got there first, you were too late.
Hindleys' crime was to do what others think,
Took her anger and her prejudice and pushed it to the brink.
Then you goodly christian people, with your sickly mask of love,
Would tear that woman limb from limb, you'd never get enough.
So you keep the story alive,
So you can make yourselves believe,
That you are so much better than her.
But you aren't, that's YOUR GUILT laying there.
She's the anti-mother, mommy is that you?
She's the anti-mother, mother, mother is that you?
She's the anti-mother, mommy is that you?
She's the anti-mother, mother, mother is that you?
Mother? Mother? Mother? Mother? Mother? Mother? Mother? Mother? Mother?\"
-
Torture them for a while then leave them to die on a cross.
-
I am happy with my thoughts and I repeat I would gladly sign the papers for Huntly, Brady, Sutcliffe, the Ipswich guy, the crossbow killer and all the others to swing tomorrow. No probs whatsoever.
-
CusworthRovers wrote:
I would gladly sign the papers for Huntly, Brady, Sutcliffe, the Ipswich guy, the crossbow killer and all the others to swing tomorrow.
I don't think taking them to a party at Nudga's house is the answer. ;)
-
donnyjay wrote:
CusworthRovers wrote:
I would gladly sign the papers for Huntly, Brady, Sutcliffe, the Ipswich guy, the crossbow killer and all the others to swing tomorrow.
I don't think taking them to a party at Nudga's house is the answer. ;)
That's where they were 2hrs BEFORE they did what they did.
-
Nudga wrote:
donnyjay wrote:
CusworthRovers wrote:
I would gladly sign the papers for Huntly, Brady, Sutcliffe, the Ipswich guy, the crossbow killer and all the others to swing tomorrow.
I don't think taking them to a party at Nudga's house is the answer. ;)
That's where they were 2hrs BEFORE they did what they did.
Lol.
What do you think tipped them over the edge? Was it the gimp outfits you made them wear or the double-ended Black Mambas you made them use?
-
Or did you just get them to hold your tea towels? :laugh:
-
CusworthRovers wrote:
I am happy with my thoughts and I repeat I would gladly sign the papers for Huntly, Brady, Sutcliffe, the Ipswich guy, the crossbow killer and all the others to swing tomorrow. No probs whatsoever.
Wow - That's weird - to be happy with thoughts like that?
-
You're happy for Huntly to live a decent life of luxury albeit in Prison, when he has destroyed so many lives.............weird
-
CusworthRovers wrote:
You're happy for Huntly to live a decent life of luxury albeit in Prison, when he has destroyed so many lives.............weird
Whether you agree or not with killing Huntley, there's still the practical question: How do you tell for CERTAIN which 100% definitely guilty murderers are actually 100% definitely guilty?
And if you don't know that for certain, then you will end up murdering (for that us what it would be) innocents like Kiszko. We know that because it's happened in the past in this country and it happens in America today.
So, unless you think that's just an unfortunate side effect that is a price worth paying for your blood lust, the whole issue is just a hypothetical debate.
-
even on the clearest cut cases I think its too easy an option just to 'hang em high'. Knowing that Huntly has made several attempts on his own life satifies me that the system works, perhaps hes an attention seeking maniac, but just maybe a flicker of conscience has kicked in, or hes fed up of being permanently sh$t frightened of all those around him, but the chance to give him that time, so he can experience every day just little of what he put his victims through is surely the a greater punishment,and id hate to deny him of that with some sanctioned painless process granting greater noteriety - as rest assured whatever made him do it whould not have been influenced by any possible punishment
-
CusworthRovers wrote:
You're happy for Huntly to live a decent life of luxury albeit in Prison, when he has destroyed so many lives.............weird
I'm assuming that you're suggesting that I've stated somewhere that I'm happy for Ian Huntley to live a decent life of luxury - I don't recall that.
I do recall you implying that you would be happy to sign death warrants for Huntly, Brady, Sutcliffe, the Ipswich guy, the crossbow killer and all the others to swing tomorrow and that is the bit that I wouldn't be comfortable with.
In amongst \"all the others\" could well be a dodgy conviction and I couldn't declare myself to be happy to allow an innocent person to be put to death.
You are happy with your choice, I am comfortable with mine.
-
Ian H wrote:
CusworthRovers wrote:
You're happy for Huntly to live a decent life of luxury albeit in Prison, when he has destroyed so many lives.............weird
I'm assuming that you're suggesting that I've stated somewhere that I'm happy for Ian Huntley to live a decent life of luxury - I don't recall that.
I do recall you implying that you would be happy to sign death warrants for Huntly, Brady, Sutcliffe, the Ipswich guy, the crossbow killer and all the others to swing tomorrow and that is the bit that I wouldn't be comfortable with.
In amongst \"all the others\" could well be a dodgy conviction and I couldn't declare myself to be happy to allow an innocent person to be put to death.
You are happy with your choice, I am comfortable with mine.
They still burn witches at the stake where Cussie was brought up :laugh:
-
CusworthRovers wrote:
You're happy for Huntly to live a decent life of luxury albeit in Prison, when he has destroyed so many lives.............weird
I love it when someone comes out with the 'prison is luxury' line, as if they'd volunteer to swap places with them for the rest of their lives.
-
After reading this thread and pondering several poster's fears about innocent people being put to death, I wonder how many of those very same people celebrated the death of Jade Goody on this forum?
-
Wow - that's quite a leap. Why would anyone have celebrated the death of Ms Goody?
-
Bentley Bullet wrote:
After reading this thread and pondering several poster's fears about innocent people being put to death, I wonder how many of those very same people celebrated the death of Jade Goody on this forum?
I'm not sure, but I bet there are plenty who'll be celebrating when Maggie dies.
-
Bentley Bullet wrote:
After reading this thread and pondering several poster's fears about innocent people being put to death, I wonder how many of those very same people celebrated the death of Jade Goody on this forum?
Fu-cki-nghell. Are you telling me Jade Goody were executed? On this very forum? Oh aye - I'd have paid to watch that.
-
There is no winner in this debate, but interesting all the same.
When I name those named people, I am happy that they are guilty and those of a similar nature. Nothing you say will sway my thoughts on this. I'm not naming domestic murderers etc etc to be destroyed. I am in the mind that an undeniable menace to society that will, or will likely kill innocent kids or adults as no place on this earth.
The term living in luxury is married up, or comparable to what they have left behind, rather than living in a Yacht in St Tropez. After all what kind of luxury are the victims living in now??, or their families, extended families, friends, colleagues, acquaintances etc etc.