Death penalty recipients?
Discussion
andymadmak said:
Hmm, thats convenient for you - societal changes that could explain etc. Of course, you then don't have to actually say which change that was, or what caused it... Society has always changed. In fact, over the 100 years prior to the abolition of the death penalty, when there were truly huge societal changes, the emergence of organised labour, two world wars, a great depression and so much more, the murder rate per million head of population remained steady (at about 7)
In the 40 years following abolition the rate rose inexorably to 14 per million head of population. But I would agree with you that a societal change caused that rise, in fact I'll go so far as to identify it - that change was the abolition of the death penalty for murder and the general softening of our police and criminal justice system which sent a signal to the crims that no matter what they did it would not cost them their own life.
You are making a statement, that assumes that the removal of the death penalty is directly responsible for any increase in the number of murders committed. I was pointing out, that you can't make that assumption, but have to consider what else has changed in that time. It is a logical fallacy - post hoc ergo propter hoc.In the 40 years following abolition the rate rose inexorably to 14 per million head of population. But I would agree with you that a societal change caused that rise, in fact I'll go so far as to identify it - that change was the abolition of the death penalty for murder and the general softening of our police and criminal justice system which sent a signal to the crims that no matter what they did it would not cost them their own life.
That is not to say that it definitely is not the case, but timing alone is not sufficient to prove a causal relationship.
Edit - It would be interesting to compare the homicide rates prior to 1900 (which I can't find), and also crime rates for other previously capital crimes, to see if there is a similar correlation.
Edited by tank slapper on Friday 6th August 15:21
matchmaker said:
"The table is fitted with restraints to hold down the prisoner sentenced to a "birching"...The selection of the appropriate rod depended on the age and size of the offender, with the smallest reserved for 8- to 10-year olds"8 year olds!
HundredthIdiot said:
matchmaker said:
"The table is fitted with restraints to hold down the prisoner sentenced to a "birching"...The selection of the appropriate rod depended on the age and size of the offender, with the smallest reserved for 8- to 10-year olds"8 year olds!
I have however seem a "judicial" birch rod at first hand. I would NOT fancy being on the wrong end of one
stitched said:
otolith said:
stitched said:
Guilty beyond reasonable doubt is not sufficient IMHO, full release of ALL evidence to a seperate jury after conviction who reccomend yea or nay to a panel of 3 judges who may then apply the sentence of death if they are convinced there is no doubt at all of guilt.
[will not debate moral issue on]
So automatic judicial review / appeal which either gets them death or aquittal. Not going to change the outcome in miscarriages of justice where the court made the right decision on the basis of the evidence before it, but the evidence was wrong. [will not debate moral issue on]
I think there are cases where there is no doubt at all, Fred West, Peter Sutcliffe and several others?
My father worked with a miner who had been birched as a young man. He was guilty and took the punishment and swore he would never be in trouble again, he wasn't as the punishment showed him the errors of his ways.
It was stopped allegedly as there were too many working class got birched when "rich kids" were let off as they were just high spirited.
Interesting to note that on another thread the yob who kicked his puppy for 20 mins would have been birched in the past a suitable punishment?
It was stopped allegedly as there were too many working class got birched when "rich kids" were let off as they were just high spirited.
Interesting to note that on another thread the yob who kicked his puppy for 20 mins would have been birched in the past a suitable punishment?
matchmaker said:
HundredthIdiot said:
matchmaker said:
"The table is fitted with restraints to hold down the prisoner sentenced to a "birching"...The selection of the appropriate rod depended on the age and size of the offender, with the smallest reserved for 8- to 10-year olds"8 year olds!
I have however seem a "judicial" birch rod at first hand. I would NOT fancy being on the wrong end of one
Deva Link said:
I think they still did it in the Isle Of Man until the early 70's.
I once discussed this with a guy who had 6 strokes of the birch in the IOM for assault when drunk. He was a big fella who could look after himself, he told me that it was a bloody big Sergeant who did the birching and the miscreant admitted that he cried like a baby afterwards, the pain was unbearable.A good case for re-introduction I think.
thinfourth2 said:
There would be no need nor call for the death penalty in this country if life in prison meant life and not a few years
And given the choice between being dead or being locked up with hundreds of chavs with the only entertainment being sky TV i would happily choose dead please.
I wouldn't give them any TV. Anyone who who was inside would be worked or educated so they could gain employment outside.And given the choice between being dead or being locked up with hundreds of chavs with the only entertainment being sky TV i would happily choose dead please.
Life would mean die in prison so don't waste any time doing any education just work them
IF, and it's a bloody big if for a reason, I were convinced that the person were guilty of the crimes I believed warranted death then yes I would be willing to be the instrument of death.
There are some criminals, admittedly very few, who IMHO deserve to die but I don't believe any government could be trusted to administer such punishment.
I am therefore in the camp of not re-introducing the death penalty.
However the thread was to enquire opinion.
In the hypothetical scenario including the death penalty as an option what crimes should merit death in your opinion?
There are some criminals, admittedly very few, who IMHO deserve to die but I don't believe any government could be trusted to administer such punishment.
I am therefore in the camp of not re-introducing the death penalty.
However the thread was to enquire opinion.
In the hypothetical scenario including the death penalty as an option what crimes should merit death in your opinion?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff