If you could guarantee the verdict, would you pull the rope?
Discussion
There's an article in the Telegraph today about a gang of twunts who tied up, assaulted and robbed a pensioner couple of 20k. All had prior records, one had been arrested while on bail for something else, etc etc. The judge gave them 15 years, so that's something. But why are we bothering ? There's no ambiguity in the case, these people are never going to add to society, why isn't it a 9mm and an invoice for the cartridge ?
A lot of the opposition to capital punishment is the sense - rightly - that laws and courts are not perfect, and it is better to let ten guilty go free than one innocent go to the gallows. But imagine a verdict could be guaranteed, science fiction style with an incorruptible AI, 24/7 video, Tom Cruise as the investigator, you know the score.
If that was the case, would you bring back the death penalty ? Let's say it's a 'take the blue pill, go to sleep, never wake up, no pain' kind of thing rather than being dropped into a pit of rabid hamsters. And, more importantly, for what offences ?
Murder - sure
Rape - burn 'em
Aggravated burglary - maybe a second chance approach
Manslaughter - probably not
Keying a parked car - hamsters
A lot of the opposition to capital punishment is the sense - rightly - that laws and courts are not perfect, and it is better to let ten guilty go free than one innocent go to the gallows. But imagine a verdict could be guaranteed, science fiction style with an incorruptible AI, 24/7 video, Tom Cruise as the investigator, you know the score.
If that was the case, would you bring back the death penalty ? Let's say it's a 'take the blue pill, go to sleep, never wake up, no pain' kind of thing rather than being dropped into a pit of rabid hamsters. And, more importantly, for what offences ?
Murder - sure
Rape - burn 'em
Aggravated burglary - maybe a second chance approach
Manslaughter - probably not
Keying a parked car - hamsters
Ye, without question, and none of this hanging around like in the states, Convicted, Taken to the back of the court and dead,lethal injection. From court to coffin,job done, lots of money saved. Although for rapists and paedophiles, it would have to be Mafia style, Bullet up the ass go though all the major organs and you will die, eventually.
Newc said:
There's an article in the Telegraph today about a gang of twunts who tied up, assaulted and robbed a pensioner couple of 20k. All had prior records, one had been arrested while on bail for something else, etc etc. The judge gave them 15 years, so that's something. But why are we bothering ? There's no ambiguity in the case, these people are never going to add to society, why isn't it a 9mm and an invoice for the cartridge ?
A lot of the opposition to capital punishment is the sense - rightly - that laws and courts are not perfect, and it is better to let ten guilty go free than one innocent go to the gallows. But imagine a verdict could be guaranteed, science fiction style with an incorruptible AI, 24/7 video, Tom Cruise as the investigator, you know the score.
If that was the case, would you bring back the death penalty ? Let's say it's a 'take the blue pill, go to sleep, never wake up, no pain' kind of thing rather than being dropped into a pit of rabid hamsters. And, more importantly, for what offences ?
Murder - sure
Rape - burn 'em
Aggravated burglary - maybe a second chance approach
Manslaughter - probably not
Keying a parked car - hamsters
Not much of a jump from what you want to Sharia Law by the sounds of itA lot of the opposition to capital punishment is the sense - rightly - that laws and courts are not perfect, and it is better to let ten guilty go free than one innocent go to the gallows. But imagine a verdict could be guaranteed, science fiction style with an incorruptible AI, 24/7 video, Tom Cruise as the investigator, you know the score.
If that was the case, would you bring back the death penalty ? Let's say it's a 'take the blue pill, go to sleep, never wake up, no pain' kind of thing rather than being dropped into a pit of rabid hamsters. And, more importantly, for what offences ?
Murder - sure
Rape - burn 'em
Aggravated burglary - maybe a second chance approach
Manslaughter - probably not
Keying a parked car - hamsters
I would be happy with execution for some murders - intentional/not first violent crime/defenceless victim/etc. No torture though.
Kiddly fiddlers should be thrown off Beachy Head.
Sharia Law doesn't sound like anything to worry about. Some days it sounds like it would be an improvement.
Kiddly fiddlers should be thrown off Beachy Head.
Sharia Law doesn't sound like anything to worry about. Some days it sounds like it would be an improvement.
This is an 'interesting' read, a bit repetitive in places though.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0078XGYZ2/ref=dp-kind...
Pierrepoint was executing what we would now call chavs and other assorted idiots for the same stupid s
t they do now so I'd say that the death penalty wasn't much of a deterrent, it did stop the re-offending though...
If I was 100% certain then yes, I could pull the lever but if there was even 0.001% chance that the accused was innocent then it would have to be life without parole.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0078XGYZ2/ref=dp-kind...
Pierrepoint was executing what we would now call chavs and other assorted idiots for the same stupid s
t they do now so I'd say that the death penalty wasn't much of a deterrent, it did stop the re-offending though...If I was 100% certain then yes, I could pull the lever but if there was even 0.001% chance that the accused was innocent then it would have to be life without parole.
Newc said:
There's an article in the Telegraph today about a gang of twunts who tied up, assaulted and robbed a pensioner couple of 20k. All had prior records, one had been arrested while on bail for something else, etc etc. The judge gave them 15 years, so that's something. But why are we bothering ? There's no ambiguity in the case, these people are never going to add to society, why isn't it a 9mm and an invoice for the cartridge ?
A lot of the opposition to capital punishment is the sense - rightly - that laws and courts are not perfect, and it is better to let ten guilty go free than one innocent go to the gallows. But imagine a verdict could be guaranteed, science fiction style with an incorruptible AI, 24/7 video, Tom Cruise as the investigator, you know the score.
If that was the case, would you bring back the death penalty ? Let's say it's a 'take the blue pill, go to sleep, never wake up, no pain' kind of thing rather than being dropped into a pit of rabid hamsters. And, more importantly, for what offences ?
Murder - sure
Rape - burn 'em
Aggravated burglary - maybe a second chance approach
Manslaughter - probably not
Keying a parked car - hamsters
Is that you, Paul Nuttall?A lot of the opposition to capital punishment is the sense - rightly - that laws and courts are not perfect, and it is better to let ten guilty go free than one innocent go to the gallows. But imagine a verdict could be guaranteed, science fiction style with an incorruptible AI, 24/7 video, Tom Cruise as the investigator, you know the score.
If that was the case, would you bring back the death penalty ? Let's say it's a 'take the blue pill, go to sleep, never wake up, no pain' kind of thing rather than being dropped into a pit of rabid hamsters. And, more importantly, for what offences ?
Murder - sure
Rape - burn 'em
Aggravated burglary - maybe a second chance approach
Manslaughter - probably not
Keying a parked car - hamsters
I certainly wouldn't want to be like most countries that have the death penalty.
Not in favour of the death penalty but would rather have prison sentences that have proper hard labour. Cleaning graffiti, rubbish , fixing roads repairing pensioners homes etc. A full hard days work. No prisoner should be sat lounging in prison. Any refusal results in a tripling of sentence with no privileges.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
How much do you assume it would cost to execute someone?Personally no, I don't agree with the death penalty, I do however think prision should mean punishment as well as with rehabilitation at the appropriate time during the sentence. At the moment it doesn't seem to do either.
Death penalty is an easy way out.
Lock those who commit heinous crimes up for life. Sooner or later a day will come where they will realise the utter futility of what they've done and on that day they will realise they have many, many more years inside to ponder and regret their wasted lives.
Besides, we live in a supposedly civilised society so why should we lower ourselves to their level of depravity just to quench our thirst for retribution.
Lock those who commit heinous crimes up for life. Sooner or later a day will come where they will realise the utter futility of what they've done and on that day they will realise they have many, many more years inside to ponder and regret their wasted lives.
Besides, we live in a supposedly civilised society so why should we lower ourselves to their level of depravity just to quench our thirst for retribution.
In 1950 Timothy Evans was tried and convicted for the murder of his wife and infant daughter, despite the fact that he had protested his innocence and accused his downstairs neighbour John Christie. He was hanged at Pentonville on 9 March.
Three years later Christie was found to be a serial killer who had murdered 6 other women (including his own wife) and hid their bodies behind the walls and under the floorboards at 10 Rillington Place, Notting Hill.
So, an innocent man was convicted in a British Court, based upon the burden of evidence, and put to death wrongly by the State.
The State only has to get it wrong a single time for such a sentence to be totally untenable.
If you are going to have a death penalty it can't be based upon 'beyond reasonable doubt' it must be based upon 'beyond all doubt'.
How often is that likely to be the case?
Three years later Christie was found to be a serial killer who had murdered 6 other women (including his own wife) and hid their bodies behind the walls and under the floorboards at 10 Rillington Place, Notting Hill.
So, an innocent man was convicted in a British Court, based upon the burden of evidence, and put to death wrongly by the State.
The State only has to get it wrong a single time for such a sentence to be totally untenable.
If you are going to have a death penalty it can't be based upon 'beyond reasonable doubt' it must be based upon 'beyond all doubt'.
How often is that likely to be the case?
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff