This is why we must never bring back the death sentence...
Discussion
AUDIHenry said:
thehawk said:
I totally disagree. The odd innocent life is worth the sacrifice in comparison to the potential thousands of scumbags that could be removed. However under my system this man wouldn't have been executed because I would impose the death penalty only in case where it can be proven without doubt that the person had done it and only in certain crimes, even certain degrees of those crimes.
One thing I forgot to say on the other thread about Britains decline is that I also think a large part of that is due to us becoming weak as a society, this is an example. It will probably be our downfall in the end.
The death penalty does not deter crime. Lock the guilty up, let them work in Uranium mines, but killing them is inhumane.One thing I forgot to say on the other thread about Britains decline is that I also think a large part of that is due to us becoming weak as a society, this is an example. It will probably be our downfall in the end.
Finally the balance of the rights of the criminal vs the rights of (potential) victims needs to be revisited. On the surface, Sharia law would appear to appear to make a better job of it IMHO.
Also let's not forget that medical blunders reportedly kill upwards of 10,000 people every year. And I don't hear of any major changes being planned that are going to reduce that in any shape or form. That's a good starting point to consider the value of a life to society I think. It would appear that such deaths are considered an acceptable risk. That comitting a murder carries the same risk is not altogether unreasonable, surely?
FarleyRusk said:
AUDIHenry said:
thehawk said:
I totally disagree. The odd innocent life is worth the sacrifice in comparison to the potential thousands of scumbags that could be removed. However under my system this man wouldn't have been executed because I would impose the death penalty only in case where it can be proven without doubt that the person had done it and only in certain crimes, even certain degrees of those crimes.
One thing I forgot to say on the other thread about Britains decline is that I also think a large part of that is due to us becoming weak as a society, this is an example. It will probably be our downfall in the end.
The death penalty does not deter crime. Lock the guilty up, let them work in Uranium mines, but killing them is inhumane.One thing I forgot to say on the other thread about Britains decline is that I also think a large part of that is due to us becoming weak as a society, this is an example. It will probably be our downfall in the end.
Finally the balance of the rights of the criminal vs the rights of (potential) victims needs to be revisited. On the surface, Sharia law would appear to appear to make a better job of it IMHO.
Also let's not forget that medical blunders reportedly kill upwards of 10,000 people every year. And I don't hear of any major changes being planned that are going to reduce that in any shape or form. That's a good starting point to consider the value of a life to society I think. It would appear that such deaths are considered an acceptable risk. That comitting a murder carries the same risk is not altogether unreasonable, surely?
Unfortunately for those on this thread that argue that the death penalty is not a deterrent, the ONLY available evidence suggests most strongly that it is.
Forget the spurious arguements about crime in the USA and other societies that have the death penalty. These places are patently not the UK, have different social structures and norms, and hugely different attitiudes to things like gun ownership etc.
The only reliable data available is from the Home Office, and then the data to be looked at is the murder rate per million head of population pre and post repeal of the death sentence.
in short, in the approx 80 years that records were kept pre the abolition of the death penalty in the UK, the murder rate per million head of population stayed pretty constant at about 7. This despite 2 world wars, a great depression, and times of massive social upheaval and change.
In the 40 odd years since abolition, the murder rate has doubled to 14.
says it all really. So, given that there are 60 milllion of us on these islands now, we now have an average of 840 murders per year, versus the 420 it would have been if the murder rate had remained the same as it had been for the previous 80 years. Thats 420 extra murdered souls dead, so that the liberal sqeemish can preach to us and sleep well in their beds.
Perhaps a tad simplistic? But more than a grain of truth I suspect...
AKM
Forget the spurious arguements about crime in the USA and other societies that have the death penalty. These places are patently not the UK, have different social structures and norms, and hugely different attitiudes to things like gun ownership etc.
The only reliable data available is from the Home Office, and then the data to be looked at is the murder rate per million head of population pre and post repeal of the death sentence.
in short, in the approx 80 years that records were kept pre the abolition of the death penalty in the UK, the murder rate per million head of population stayed pretty constant at about 7. This despite 2 world wars, a great depression, and times of massive social upheaval and change.
In the 40 odd years since abolition, the murder rate has doubled to 14.
says it all really. So, given that there are 60 milllion of us on these islands now, we now have an average of 840 murders per year, versus the 420 it would have been if the murder rate had remained the same as it had been for the previous 80 years. Thats 420 extra murdered souls dead, so that the liberal sqeemish can preach to us and sleep well in their beds.
Perhaps a tad simplistic? But more than a grain of truth I suspect...
AKM
hoppy2008 said:
His conviction was based upon a lie told by him, in a day when they didnt have the DNA methods that we have today?
No, he was a pathological liar. That's not a criticism of him, it's a fact. he was known to the police as a pathologic liar at the time, he had a history of confessing to crimes, and he had a history of confessing to crimes in which it was known that he could not have committed. Everything was known about him at the time, he was well known to the police at the time as being a pathological liar.So, it seems that some people think it is ok to hang nutters whist not only letting the guilty off scot free, but maintaining their liberty to go on to commit further foul deeds. Blimey, no wonder the murder rate has gone up.
heebeegeetee said:
hoppy2008 said:
His conviction was based upon a lie told by him, in a day when they didnt have the DNA methods that we have today?
No, he was a pathological liar. That's not a criticism of him, it's a fact. he was known to the police as a pathologic liar at the time, he had a history of confessing to crimes, and he had a history of confessing to crimes in which it was known that he could not have committed. Everything was known about him at the time, he was well known to the police at the time as being a pathological liar.So, it seems that some people think it is ok to hang nutters whist not only letting the guilty off scot free, but maintaining their liberty to go on to commit further foul deeds. Blimey, no wonder the murder rate has gone up.
andymadmak said:
Unfortunately for those on this thread that argue that the death penalty is not a deterrent, the ONLY available evidence suggests most strongly that it is.
Forget the spurious arguements about crime in the USA and other societies that have the death penalty. These places are patently not the UK, have different social structures and norms, and hugely different attitiudes to things like gun ownership etc.
The only reliable data available is from the Home Office, and then the data to be looked at is the murder rate per million head of population pre and post repeal of the death sentence.
in short, in the approx 80 years that records were kept pre the abolition of the death penalty in the UK, the murder rate per million head of population stayed pretty constant at about 7. This despite 2 world wars, a great depression, and times of massive social upheaval and change.
In the 40 odd years since abolition, the murder rate has doubled to 14.
says it all really. So, given that there are 60 milllion of us on these islands now, we now have an average of 840 murders per year, versus the 420 it would have been if the murder rate had remained the same as it had been for the previous 80 years. Thats 420 extra murdered souls dead, so that the liberal sqeemish can preach to us and sleep well in their beds.
Perhaps a tad simplistic? But more than a grain of truth I suspect...
AKM
You can't assume causality based solely on one change!Forget the spurious arguements about crime in the USA and other societies that have the death penalty. These places are patently not the UK, have different social structures and norms, and hugely different attitiudes to things like gun ownership etc.
The only reliable data available is from the Home Office, and then the data to be looked at is the murder rate per million head of population pre and post repeal of the death sentence.
in short, in the approx 80 years that records were kept pre the abolition of the death penalty in the UK, the murder rate per million head of population stayed pretty constant at about 7. This despite 2 world wars, a great depression, and times of massive social upheaval and change.
In the 40 odd years since abolition, the murder rate has doubled to 14.
says it all really. So, given that there are 60 milllion of us on these islands now, we now have an average of 840 murders per year, versus the 420 it would have been if the murder rate had remained the same as it had been for the previous 80 years. Thats 420 extra murdered souls dead, so that the liberal sqeemish can preach to us and sleep well in their beds.
Perhaps a tad simplistic? But more than a grain of truth I suspect...
AKM
fadeaway said:
andymadmak said:
Unfortunately for those on this thread that argue that the death penalty is not a deterrent, the ONLY available evidence suggests most strongly that it is.
Forget the spurious arguements about crime in the USA and other societies that have the death penalty. These places are patently not the UK, have different social structures and norms, and hugely different attitiudes to things like gun ownership etc.
The only reliable data available is from the Home Office, and then the data to be looked at is the murder rate per million head of population pre and post repeal of the death sentence.
in short, in the approx 80 years that records were kept pre the abolition of the death penalty in the UK, the murder rate per million head of population stayed pretty constant at about 7. This despite 2 world wars, a great depression, and times of massive social upheaval and change.
In the 40 odd years since abolition, the murder rate has doubled to 14.
says it all really. So, given that there are 60 milllion of us on these islands now, we now have an average of 840 murders per year, versus the 420 it would have been if the murder rate had remained the same as it had been for the previous 80 years. Thats 420 extra murdered souls dead, so that the liberal sqeemish can preach to us and sleep well in their beds.
Perhaps a tad simplistic? But more than a grain of truth I suspect...
AKM
You can't assume causality based solely on one change!Forget the spurious arguements about crime in the USA and other societies that have the death penalty. These places are patently not the UK, have different social structures and norms, and hugely different attitiudes to things like gun ownership etc.
The only reliable data available is from the Home Office, and then the data to be looked at is the murder rate per million head of population pre and post repeal of the death sentence.
in short, in the approx 80 years that records were kept pre the abolition of the death penalty in the UK, the murder rate per million head of population stayed pretty constant at about 7. This despite 2 world wars, a great depression, and times of massive social upheaval and change.
In the 40 odd years since abolition, the murder rate has doubled to 14.
says it all really. So, given that there are 60 milllion of us on these islands now, we now have an average of 840 murders per year, versus the 420 it would have been if the murder rate had remained the same as it had been for the previous 80 years. Thats 420 extra murdered souls dead, so that the liberal sqeemish can preach to us and sleep well in their beds.
Perhaps a tad simplistic? But more than a grain of truth I suspect...
AKM
At the pinacle of all this is the death penalty. Time was, you took a life and you lost yours. Now, you can take a life and be out in 5 years and treated as a hero by your mates.
The death penalty, as part of a police and criminal justice system which strikes fear in the heart of prospective crims has got to be a deterrent.
Now, rather than loftily dismissing the doubling of the annual murder rate since the abolition of the death penalty, perhaps you might care to put forward an alternate, credible explanation/
AKM
andymadmak said:
the ONLY available evidence suggests most strongly that it is. ..In the 40 odd years since abolition, the murder rate has doubled to 14.
There are about 2,500 other factors you are ignoring. The relationship you are implying simply does not exist. It's like saying that everything that happened to you today happened after you got out of bed, so that must have caused it. andymadmak said:
says it all really.
AKM
No, it doesn't. The death penalty is not a deterrent. For one thing, violent criminals are either psychopathic or acting in the heat of the moment. Neither would stop and think "Hang on, I could be executed for this" and then stop themselves from proceeding. That leaves about 2,499 other considerations, none of them involving the death penalty.AKM
tinman0 said:
AUDIHenry said:
The death penalty does not deter crime.
How do we know though? I mean for sure?
king deter me! Not that I've ever killed anyone!Might also make people think twice about carrying a knife - If I use it, I die anyway. Kinda makes it a bit pointless.
just me said:
No, it doesn't. The death penalty is not a deterrent. For one thing, violent criminals are either psychopathic or acting in the heat of the moment. Neither would stop and think "Hang on, I could be executed for this" and then stop themselves from proceeding. That leaves about 2,499 other considerations, none of them involving the death penalty.
Have a look at the cctv images that are published where someone gets stabbed - this isn't a psychopath or heat of the moment - its pure cold blooded killing and the perpetrator knows that at the very worst case scenario they'll get 15 years.You only need to hear about the reactions of criminals in recent cases where they are sent down by the judge and they are still sneering to see that we don't punish enough anymore. The punishment is no longer a deterrent.
just me said:
andymadmak said:
the ONLY available evidence suggests most strongly that it is. ..In the 40 odd years since abolition, the murder rate has doubled to 14.
There are about 2,500 other factors you are ignoring. The relationship you are implying simply does not exist. It's like saying that everything that happened to you today happened after you got out of bed, so that must have caused it. andymadmak said:
says it all really.
AKM
No, it doesn't. The death penalty is not a deterrent. For one thing, violent criminals are either psychopathic or acting in the heat of the moment. Neither would stop and think "Hang on, I could be executed for this" and then stop themselves from proceeding. That leaves about 2,499 other considerations, none of them involving the death penalty.AKM
t going on in society too. Social upheaval, grinding poverty, 2 world wars, the emergence of the welfare state. And yet, despite all that and more, the annual murder rate per million head of population remained largely unaltered. Come the late sixties, and we soften the criminal justice system, abolish the death penalty and woooooosh, the murder rate doubles. No evidence of cause and effect? A post hoc fallacy? You're dreaming man!
AM
"This is why we must never bring back the death sentence"
I haven't read all the posts so apologies incase I repeat what others might have said - I'm not sure about the death penalty but let's not forget this was nearly thirty years ago and the world of DNA has come a long way since. Yes, where a case must be proven a life term should be used but in the case of nailed on certainties such as Sutcliff, Black and the likes why bother, it's probably kinder to them and more appropriate to end their twisted miserable lives for the cruel way they ended their victims.
I haven't read all the posts so apologies incase I repeat what others might have said - I'm not sure about the death penalty but let's not forget this was nearly thirty years ago and the world of DNA has come a long way since. Yes, where a case must be proven a life term should be used but in the case of nailed on certainties such as Sutcliff, Black and the likes why bother, it's probably kinder to them and more appropriate to end their twisted miserable lives for the cruel way they ended their victims.
andymadmak said:
Unfortunately for those on this thread that argue that the death penalty is not a deterrent, the ONLY available evidence suggests most strongly that it is.
Forget the spurious arguements about crime in the USA and other societies that have the death penalty. These places are patently not the UK, have different social structures and norms, and hugely different attitiudes to things like gun ownership etc.
The only reliable data available is from the Home Office, and then the data to be looked at is the murder rate per million head of population pre and post repeal of the death sentence.
in short, in the approx 80 years that records were kept pre the abolition of the death penalty in the UK, the murder rate per million head of population stayed pretty constant at about 7. This despite 2 world wars, a great depression, and times of massive social upheaval and change.
In the 40 odd years since abolition, the murder rate has doubled to 14.
says it all really. So, given that there are 60 milllion of us on these islands now, we now have an average of 840 murders per year, versus the 420 it would have been if the murder rate had remained the same as it had been for the previous 80 years. Thats 420 extra murdered souls dead, so that the liberal sqeemish can preach to us and sleep well in their beds.
Perhaps a tad simplistic? But more than a grain of truth I suspect...
AKM
You are forgetting the massive boom in population, which has a pretty discernable effect on crime. Forget the spurious arguements about crime in the USA and other societies that have the death penalty. These places are patently not the UK, have different social structures and norms, and hugely different attitiudes to things like gun ownership etc.
The only reliable data available is from the Home Office, and then the data to be looked at is the murder rate per million head of population pre and post repeal of the death sentence.
in short, in the approx 80 years that records were kept pre the abolition of the death penalty in the UK, the murder rate per million head of population stayed pretty constant at about 7. This despite 2 world wars, a great depression, and times of massive social upheaval and change.
In the 40 odd years since abolition, the murder rate has doubled to 14.
says it all really. So, given that there are 60 milllion of us on these islands now, we now have an average of 840 murders per year, versus the 420 it would have been if the murder rate had remained the same as it had been for the previous 80 years. Thats 420 extra murdered souls dead, so that the liberal sqeemish can preach to us and sleep well in their beds.
Perhaps a tad simplistic? But more than a grain of truth I suspect...
AKM
It is also worth pointing out that those who commit crimes supposedly worthy of a death sentence either do not intend to ever be caught or they do not care about the consequences due to mental illness or simple lack of compassion. Either way there's no difference to them in a prison or a death sentence.
ZR1cliff said:
I haven't read all the posts so apologies incase I repeat what others might have said - I'm not sure about the death penalty but let's not forget this was nearly thirty years ago and the world of DNA has come a long way since. Yes, where a case must be proven a life term should be used but in the case of nailed on certainties such as Sutcliff, Black and the likes why bother, it's probably kinder to them and more appropriate to end their twisted miserable lives for the cruel way they ended their victims.
Use the American case of the death penalty - it has to be pretty obvious and clear cut for someone to get the death penalty. The crime really does have to be up their with brutal to the extreme.Dracoro said:
v9 ogre said:
However if you have someone who is unequivably (sp) guilty
But they all ARE. Else they'd not be in jail. Proven without doubt.I know what you are trying to say, and I agree *in principle* (although I still think there are worse punishments than death) but it is pretty much impossible to implement and impractical as you have to ascertain a difference between *guilty* and *definitely guilty*. We only have *definitely guilty* as our current system.
ali_kat said:
10ps - out of curiosity - did this conversation ever happen whilst you were inside? Did you get to meet any 'lifers' and get their views?
Not really, though to be fair I wasn't in the same facilities as those who were considered properly dangerous. There were one or two lifers getting towards the end of their sentences in Wealstun Open, preparing for life outside, but the discussion never came up.To be honest, when you've been locked up for 10+ years, you're more interested in what's with your chips today than the politics of the death sentence Vs life imprisonment.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff