Serve the time or life?

[Glyn_Wigley]

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?

[BillyStubbsTears]

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.

[MrFrost]

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.

[BobG]

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

[MrFrost]

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.

[BillyStubbsTears]

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.

[MrFrost]

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.

[Old Popsider]

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.

[CusworthRovers]

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.

[Glyn_Wigley]

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?

[Glyn_Wigley]

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.

[jucyberry]

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.

[MrFrost]

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.

[BillyStubbsTears]

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.

[BillyStubbsTears]

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?

[BillyStubbsTears]

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.

[Glyn_Wigley]

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.

[MrFrost]

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.

[Glyn_Wigley]

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.

[MrFrost]

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.

 
Now that would be good. You could nearly turn it into a reality TV programme. How about a convicts version of Gladiators?

[Glyn_Wigley]

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.

 
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.

[jucyberry]

My god, there are enough maniacs and wierdos on the tv now...(how much longer does Big Bro run for?)    

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.

[MrFrost]

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.

 
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!

[Glyn_Wigley]

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.

[CusworthRovers]

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.

[BillyStubbsTears]

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.

[CusworthRovers]

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

[Glyn_Wigley]

Yes. Just because I don't want to be dragged down to their level.

[BillyStubbsTears]

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.

[Glyn_Wigley]

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.