View Full Version : All those in favour of capital punishment, say I.....
So, in the light of incontestable evidence, you play the system by pleading guilty to the cold blooded, heartless, unecessary and needless murder of a defenceless victim, who given the odds couldnt and wouldnt of been able to offer any resistance to your aims anyway.........
should you be allowed any luxurys....or hang?
Paul James
11-Oct-2006, 18:48
Isn't that against their human rights Andy ? Erm...or is it more against the human rights of the innocent victim who didn't have a choice in the matter ?
I think it was in the interests of his human rights that an indepth and expensive enquiry was carried out..........beyond all reasonable doubt.......(even some paid by the public, rip off smart arse lawyer couldnt contest) so in the light of that plead guilty!.........gotta be worth a room on your own, tv, 3 square meals.................etc, etc, etc
dickieducati
11-Oct-2006, 18:58
kill 'em.
kill 'em.
Good point, well made!
Make them run DD for a year!!!
:lol:
Tonio600
11-Oct-2006, 19:15
I don't know at all what story you're talking about. I should have a look at the BBC website maybe...
But to me the capital punishment is clearly the wrong way. What if 10 years later the person who was declared guilty and so sentenced to death is made innocent because the technology has evolved and can prove things which it couldn't before?
I think jail for life is more the way forward. Clearly more expensive for the community, but more painful for who has to go through. And can be stopped when justice realises it was wrong.
Tonio600
11-Oct-2006, 19:18
I think it was in the interests of his human rights that an indepth and expensive enquiry was carried out..........beyond all reasonable doubt.......(even some paid by the public, rip off smart arse lawyer couldnt contest) so in the light of that plead guilty!.........gotta be worth a room on your own, tv, 3 square meals.................etc, etc, etc
I've never been to jail, but if it's as good as you say it, I don't understand why so many commit suicide...
I don't know at all what story you're talking about. I should have a look at the BBC website maybe...
But to me the capital punishment is clearly the wrong way. What if 10 years later the person who was declared guilty and so sentenced to death is made innocent because the technology has evolved and can prove things which it couldn't before?
I think jail for life is more the way forward. Clearly more expensive for the community, but more painful for who has to go through. And can be stopped when justice realises it was wrong.
Its the theiving robbing scum that shot the defenceless police woman in Bradford last year.........Why should i have to pay for his keep for the rest of his existance?......@ £300+ per day?
Paul James
11-Oct-2006, 19:22
Its the theiving robbing scum that shot the defenceless police woman in Bradford last year.........Why should i have to pay for his keep for the rest of his existance?......@ £300+ per day?
Can you keep the rope when you've finished with it, can use it on the scumbag who shot a baby dead "by mistake" apparently he was shooting at firemen across the road and missed his mark. Great defense innit !
I've never been to jail, but if it's as good as you say it, I don't understand why so many commit suicide...
So many? how many? attention seeking ****!
Bet yer ones in France/italy aint so nice...........
Paul James
11-Oct-2006, 19:25
So many? how many? attention seeking ****!
Bet yer ones in France/italy aint so nice...........
Did you ever see "Midnight Express" ? great prison system there !!!
What we really need is "Midnight Express" meets "Soylent Green"
Tonio600
11-Oct-2006, 19:28
Its the theiving robbing scum that shot the defenceless police woman in Bradford last year.........Why should i have to pay for his keep for the rest of his existance?......@ £300+ per day?
I don't know... because you happen to be a human being I guess. I just know that the law needs to be the same in all cases. And for me the capital punishment in not the right solution. At least until we find a way to bring back those killed by the justice by mistake.
Must be my French culture...
GsxrAge
11-Oct-2006, 19:29
I am in favor of hard punishment !
How about national service again !!!
Age
Tonio600
11-Oct-2006, 19:33
So many? how many? attention seeking ****!
Bet yer ones in France/italy aint so nice...........
The rate is 8 times more than compared to the life outside. I guess it because we've got nice prisons with view on the beach.
I quite liked the Chinese organ doner approach.........plus sending the family the bill for the bullet!
doogalman
11-Oct-2006, 19:39
Hard punishment and capital. Gets my vote. How about lopping of hands for thiefing scum aswell?
This once great nation is just so lenient. Damilola Taylors killers, no remorse 8 years total 1 year on remand out in 3. What would you want if it had been a child of yours glassed in the leg and left to bleed to death?
aka.eric
11-Oct-2006, 19:40
In a perfect world,kill em.But,how many innocent people would have been killed,just in my lifetime because the police fabricated evidence,ignored witnesses etc etc.Id like a vote,all those voting in favour of execution,names on a list.Then when an innocent persons executed,take a name of the list and do the same to them.Only fair,kill an innocent person,somebody must take responsibility and pay the price!.
Which part of irreputable evidence, and full and frank admission have we missed here?
......and the days of beating a confession sadly, are long gone! Today, an admission of guilt comes only when there is literally nowhere else to go........the case against, IS that good!
Paul James
11-Oct-2006, 19:57
......and the days of beating a confession sadly, are long gone! !
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Paul James
11-Oct-2006, 19:59
I quite liked the Chinese organ doner approach.........plus sending the family the bill for the bullet!
Is that with or without chillies and salad then Andy ?
They even have a van that they send round for the job.
Is that with or without chillies and salad then Andy ?
They even have a van that they send round for the job.
...but only within 3 miles of the city centre.
Paul James
11-Oct-2006, 20:14
...but only within 3 miles of the city centre.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Nah, they offer a country wide service, not sure if they charge for the fuel
aka.eric
11-Oct-2006, 20:23
Which part of irreputable evidence, and full and frank admission have we missed here?
......and the days of beating a confession sadly, are long gone! Today, an admission of guilt comes only when there is literally nowhere else to go........the case against, IS that good!
There was "irreputable evidence and full and frank admissions" when six Irish blokes were charged,the evidence put there by the police and the written confessions obtained by "persuasion".
But of course times have changed,and all police officers are straight now.....straight as a hook!
Henners
11-Oct-2006, 20:25
Ah but Eric - that was the Midlands Regional Crime squad - the best police force money could buy ;) Now don't get me started on the MT OK??
Davieravie
11-Oct-2006, 20:30
Some Brazilian geezer got shot not long ago on the tube...........He must have been guilty too...........:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Paul James
11-Oct-2006, 20:52
Some Brazilian geezer got shot not long ago on the tube...........He must have been guilty too...........:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Only of being in the country illegaly I seem to recall ?
Davieravie
11-Oct-2006, 20:58
Only of being in the country illegaly I seem to recall ?
Poor bastid!
Henners
11-Oct-2006, 21:04
.. how are you? Got a roof over your head yet?
Henners
aka.eric
11-Oct-2006, 21:06
To be fair on this one...It was stated at the enquiry,that "his clothing added to the officers suspicions",so easy mistake to make then,enquiry (whitewa..) closed,nobody to blame..end of.Wonder they didnt claim they were familiarizing themselves with new weapons,excuse for any illegal act it seems.
Davieravie
11-Oct-2006, 21:09
.. how are you? Got a roof over your head yet?
Henners
Alright Henry my dear chum....roof is on (still) and the house has had a sparkly/techno makeover! :D
Henners
11-Oct-2006, 21:10
... good to see you in these parts :)
Davieravie
11-Oct-2006, 21:11
To be fair on this one...It was stated at the enquiry,that "his clothing added to the officers suspicions",.
Better watch out folks and not pop a semi on the London Underground then! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Davieravie
11-Oct-2006, 21:12
Illegal in the wrong country, bloody 'ell Davie, best be carefull when you cross the border............on a yellow bike ;)
Unlike the poor Brazilian sod, I am usually armed and dangerous! ;)
Davieravie
11-Oct-2006, 21:16
... good to see you in these parts :)
Cheers Henry, likewise. :cool:
Some Brazilian geezer got shot not long ago on the tube...........He must have been guilty too...........:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
2 completely different sets of circumstances!
what i am talking about is a thieving scumbag whos prepared to not only take with him, but use a real loaded f/arm and shoot at and kill what was a defenceless obstacle for his escape! He wasnt even faced with some hairy arsed 6'5" that may of given him a run for his money.
The issue you raised is of course an extremely sad set of events, but not relevent to my topic.
The next time your travelling on a tube, or trapped in amongst a large group of people imagine the devestation those victims faced on 7/7..........
Henners
11-Oct-2006, 21:28
Andy - nothing personal mate - you're OK :)
Davieravie
11-Oct-2006, 21:39
2 completely different sets of circumstances!
what i am talking about is a thieving scumbag whos prepared to not only take with him, but use a real loaded f/arm and shoot at and kill what was a defenceless obstacle for his escape! He wasnt even faced with some hairy arsed 6'5" that may of given him a run for his money.
The issue you raised is of course an extremely sad set of events, but not relevent to my topic.
The next time your travelling on a tube, or trapped in amongst a large group of people imagine the devestation those victims faced on 7/7..........
Im against capital punishment as it does not work. Its my personal opinion. Its the old eye for an eye thing. It makes the victims relatives feel better in the end. It doesnt actually stop the initial crime happening in the first place. In this case you are referring to, i think the correct judicial decision would be life in jail and that means life.
I find it terribly sad when any innocent person going about their daily routine is killed, but why exactly is it so special when it's a police offer? No offence, but where is the difference? Surely murder is murder is murder? Why is it that Police jump on it when it's 'one of their own'?
Second question - under what circumstances can it ever be right to take another human life? What gives the State the right to take another human life? There are plenty of miscarriages of justice, a pardon and release from prison is small recompense for a miscarriage of justice, but it's a hell of a lot easier to release someone from prison and say 'sorry' than it is to bring them back from the dead.
I know i may look at this in a different light, but it was more than just a cold blooded murder, it was a complete slur against society!
anyway..........
What star are the Prisons in Poland?
Davieravie
11-Oct-2006, 21:44
I find it terribly sad when any innocent person going about their daily routine is killed, but why exactly is it so special when it's a police offer? No offence, but where is the difference? Surely murder is murder is murder? Why is it that Police jump on it when it's 'one of their own'?
Second question - under what circumstances can it ever be right to take another human life? What gives the State the right to take another human life? There are plenty of miscarriages of justice, a pardon and release from prison is small recompense for a miscarriage of justice, but it's a hell of a lot easier to release someone from prison and say 'sorry' than it is to bring them back from the dead.
Exactly! :cool:
What star are the Prisons in Poland?
Andy - I hate to think.
And I hate to think that you as a serving police officer have to face some of the scum that inhabit our society, and I can well understand that your upset when someone going about their duty gets killed in cold blood, but we live in a f***ed up world and it happens, and not just to Officers of the Law.
But I just fail to see how it can be right for some other person (or group of persons) to decide that they can legally take a life themselves. Thou shalt not kill - if it's good enough for one side, surely it's good enough for both sides?
I suspect i may well agree with you..........
Henners
11-Oct-2006, 21:53
Amen to that.
Amen to that.
You preaching again?:lol:
Davieravie
11-Oct-2006, 21:59
I suspect i may well agree with you..........
Andy......in a moral debate you are meant to stick to your guns (no pun intended).......
Youve lost my vote if you stand for Parliament :lol:
Henners
11-Oct-2006, 22:01
... Andy's the type of policeman you hope you meet when you're really in the s h i t :)
... Andy's the type of policeman you hope you meet when you're really in the s h i t :)
Only if you laugh with me at my constructive criticism..........:rolleyes:
Davieravie
11-Oct-2006, 22:08
I like this thread........Im off to the "Question Time" forum for a looksee! ;)
Davieravie
11-Oct-2006, 22:09
... Andy's the type of policeman you hope you meet when you're really in the s h i t :)
Ahhhhh, backhanders....eh??? ;)
philthy
11-Oct-2006, 22:09
I find it terribly sad when any innocent person going about their daily routine is killed, but why exactly is it so special when it's a police offer? No offence, but where is the difference? Surely murder is murder is murder? Why is it that Police jump on it when it's 'one of their own'?
Second question - under what circumstances can it ever be right to take another human life? What gives the State the right to take another human life? There are plenty of miscarriages of justice, a pardon and release from prison is small recompense for a miscarriage of justice, but it's a hell of a lot easier to release someone from prison and say 'sorry' than it is to bring them back from the dead.
Of course it's different.
Society expects a police officer to put his or her life on the line for YOU and your family.
Most of us would rather that the average policeman on shift did not carry a firearm when dealing with criminals. That means that we expect them on occasion to face up to someone with a firearm without any real defence except the uniform.
If the criminal serves say 7-10 years max for murdering the police officer, then quite frankly he may as well put the officer into a bodybag and take his chance. If he thinks he will hang then he just might give up his weapon. And quite frankly if he still goes ahead and kills the officer then he should forfeit his life in return.
And that should go for the whole gang involved, not just the one who pulls the trigger. Gun crime is endemic and the only way we will put a brake on it is to show criminals that the ordinary man in the street is in charge and not the bully with a gun in his hand.
I'm sorry Urban but it's people with liberal attitudes who have allowed the criminal to take over from the man in the street, and it's about time that we redressed the balance.
Henners
11-Oct-2006, 22:18
Originally posted by Davieravie
Ahhhhh, backhanders....eh???
... it's just that we share underwear, I know you'll keep it quiet Davie ;)
Davieravie
11-Oct-2006, 22:18
Of course it's different.
Society expects a police officer to put his or her life on the line for YOU and your family.
Most of us would rather that the average policeman on shift did not carry a firearm when dealing with criminals. That means that we expect them on occasion to face up to someone with a firearm without any real defence except the uniform.
If the criminal serves say 7-10 years max for murdering the police officer, then quite frankly he may as well put the officer into a bodybag and take his chance. If he thinks he will hang then he just might give up his weapon. And quite frankly if he still goes ahead and kills the officer then he should forfeit his life in return.
And that should go for the whole gang involved, not just the one who pulls the trigger. Gun crime is endemic and the only way we will put a brake on it is to show criminals that the ordinary man in the street is in charge and not the bully with a gun in his hand.
I'm sorry Urban but it's people with liberal attitudes who have allowed the criminal to take over from the man in the street, and it's about time that we redressed the balance.
Lots of people put their lives on the line every day, not just Police........
When is the last time you saw a real gun on the streets carried by a insane,muderous criminal? Me thinks you are reading the Sun/Daily Express too much Phil........scaremongering its what its all about....its the Culture of Fear thats getting put across in the media these days........:ninja: :ninja: :ninja: :ninja:
Davieravie
11-Oct-2006, 22:20
... it's just that we share underwear, I know you'll keep it quiet Davie ;)
:lol: :lol: :lol: I'll try! ;)
Henners
11-Oct-2006, 22:23
I had a FAC (Fire Arms Certificate) prior to Dunblaine - used to shoot at Bisley each year. Then Labour came to power and banned law abiding citizens from having guns. Where are we now? 3 times more guns and gun crime in the UK than was ever experience prior to 1997. When you make guns illegal only the criminals will have them.
everton
11-Oct-2006, 22:23
I don't believe in capital punishment - sparing a murderer's life proves one thing, we have more humanity, compassion and intelligent thought than they!
However, once convicted it should be life for a life in the sense that they should spend the rest of their lives in abject misery being reminded of and being made to atone for what they have done.
That's where your problem is - the justice and penal system is too soft ... they should be transported, like the old days, to break rocks and drink Fosters in Australia! :D
Davieravie
11-Oct-2006, 22:25
I don't believe in capital punishment - sparing a murderer's life proves one thing, we have more humanity, compassion and intelligent thought than they!
However, once convicted it should be life for a life in the sense that they should spend the rest of their lives in abject misery being reminded of and being made to atone for what they have done.
That's where your problem is - the justice and penal system is too soft ... they should be transported, like the old days, to break rocks and drink Fosters in Australia! :D
Naw..XXXX instead!
Davieravie
11-Oct-2006, 22:32
I had a FAC (Fire Arms Certificate) prior to Dunblaine - used to shoot at Bisley each year. Then Labour came to power and banned law abiding citizens from having guns. Where are we now? 3 times more guns and gun crime in the UK than was ever experience prior to 1997. When you make guns illegal only the criminals will have them.
We all know you are society's jewel in the crown Henry ;) .....but less guns are a good thing me thinks.
Shoot some smack.....its much more entertaining, but shhhhhhhhhhhh, dont tell anyone!!!!!! ;)
philthy
11-Oct-2006, 22:32
Lots of people put their lives on the line every day, not just Police........
When is the last time you saw a real gun on the streets carried by a insane,muderous criminal? Me thinks you are reading the Sun/Daily Express too much Phil........scaremongering its what its all about....its the Culture of Fear thats getting put across in the media these days........:ninja: :ninja: :ninja: :ninja:
My brother had a handgun pushed into his face and had a large sum of money stolen from him and I've had a shotgun fired at me.
But I suppose it was only media scaremongering.
Tonio600
11-Oct-2006, 22:32
I had a FAC (Fire Arms Certificate) prior to Dunblaine - used to shoot at Bisley each year. Then Labour came to power and banned law abiding citizens from having guns. Where are we now? 3 times more guns and gun crime in the UK than was ever experience prior to 1997. When you make guns illegal only the criminals will have them.
So you reckon people should be allowed to carry fire arms?
I don't know how it used to be in the UK (I didn't know anything about the UK before 2 years ago), but I can easily see your country following the steps of the USA. Come on tell me you don't want that...
Maybe that's because I'm a scared French bloke but I would be terrified living in a country where any drunk guy can shoot me between the eyes because I would have said something they don't like...
The world is definitely crazy, in some places more than in others.
Tonio600
11-Oct-2006, 22:34
they should be transported, like the old days, to break rocks and drink Fosters in Australia! :D
Now that's inhuman!!!! :lol:
Davieravie
11-Oct-2006, 22:37
My brother had a handgun pushed into his face and had a large sum of money stolen from him and I've had a shotgun fired at me.
But I suppose it was only media scaremongering.
Jeeez......where do you live??? Mogadishu?? ;)
Henners
11-Oct-2006, 22:42
Originally posted by Tonio
I don't know how it used to be in the UK (I didn't know anything about the UK before 2 years ago), but I can easily see your country following the steps of the USA. Come on tell me you don't want that...
The way it was is that you had to satisfy you local Chief Constable that you had a legitimate reason for having a gun and you had to keep it secure in your property - the only reasonable excuse was that you were a full member of a licenced gun club and could only use your gun on certified shooting ranges. You could be visited by your local police at any reasonable time and all your security arrangements checked along with an assessment made of your attitude and suitability to retain your licence.
Like America? - only nowerdays I'm afraid :(
Davieravie
11-Oct-2006, 22:48
The way it was is that you had to satisfy you local Chief Constable that you had a legitimate reason for having a gun and you had to keep it secure in your property - the only reasonable excuse was that you were a full member of a licenced gun club and could only use your gun on certified shooting ranges. You could be visited by your local police at any reasonable time and all your security arrangements checked along with an assessment made of your attitude and suitability to retain your licence.
Like America? - only nowerdays I'm afraid :(
How did you satisfy the Chief Constable Henry??? ;)
Henners
11-Oct-2006, 22:50
... it was in the handshake Davie ... nothing more !
philthy
11-Oct-2006, 23:32
Jeeez......where do you live??? Mogadishu?? ;)
No, just ten minutes from Liverpool:D
philthy
11-Oct-2006, 23:44
I had a FAC (Fire Arms Certificate) prior to Dunblaine - used to shoot at Bisley each year. Then Labour came to power and banned law abiding citizens from having guns. Where are we now? 3 times more guns and gun crime in the UK than was ever experience prior to 1997. When you make guns illegal only the criminals will have them.
Not quite right. I know plenty of people with legal firearms, it's only certain types which are illegal to own, i.e. pistols.
P.S. Only the Navy have guns.we have firearms :lol:
Paul James
12-Oct-2006, 00:29
The banning of handguns after Dunblane was a cheap, pointless political knee jerk reaction by the labour party to gain votes. It has achieved precisely nothing in terms of safety to the general public as hand gun crime has increased dramatically, an automatic pistol is now seen as a fashion accessory in some cultural groups.
What it has in fact achieved is the loss of a perfectly legitimate pastime for those who enjoyed target shooting, ironically at the last Olympics our pistol shooters took gold medals but now have to go abroad to practice. The further irony is that our disastrous misfortune in "winning" the Olympics for London will mean that some form of compromise will have to be reached if the pistol shooting is to take place. As the owning and carrying of handguns by the general public is illegal in this country by rights we should not have been eligible to apply to host the games.
You can ban what you like, guns, knives, screwdrivers, any other pointy things but it still won't work. You should be able to carry a knife, the problem only arises when it is used to harm others, which would happen far less often if the law was applied more positively. We have seen a plethora of unworkable, pointless, complex legislation under this government none of which is necessary if the judicial system applied the basic original laws rigidly.
As to the death penalty there are numerous occasions when it would not deter a total nutcase drugged out of his skull but a lot less people would carry guns in the commision of calculated crime if they thought they might pay the ultimate price if they killed someone.
Surely if the threat of the death penalty existed and saved some innocent lives it would be justifiable ? You'll never see a return to hard labour or life meaning life in terms of a jail sentence, the judiciary are just too soft for that.
Of course it's different.
Society expects a police officer to put his or her life on the line for YOU and your family.
Most of us would rather that the average policeman on shift did not carry a firearm when dealing with criminals. That means that we expect them on occasion to face up to someone with a firearm without any real defence except the uniform.
If the criminal serves say 7-10 years max for murdering the police officer, then quite frankly he may as well put the officer into a bodybag and take his chance. If he thinks he will hang then he just might give up his weapon. And quite frankly if he still goes ahead and kills the officer then he should forfeit his life in return.
And that should go for the whole gang involved, not just the one who pulls the trigger. Gun crime is endemic and the only way we will put a brake on it is to show criminals that the ordinary man in the street is in charge and not the bully with a gun in his hand.
I'm sorry Urban but it's people with liberal attitudes who have allowed the criminal to take over from the man in the street, and it's about time that we redressed the balance.
Sorry Phil,
Not sure I can agree with you here. Yes, I fully take your point that we expect Police to stand up and protect us with nothing more than their uniform to protect them, and despite all complaints we constantly hear, I'm grateful to them for the work they do, and I'm happy to live in a society where I'm not afraid of the Police themselves, but I have to ask, does the death penalty work as a deterrant? I think not.
Take the US as an example - it's been cited further on in this thread - Everyone has the right to bear arms, and plenty of people carry weapons, and there is also the death penalty to act as a deterrent, so why do people still kill each other? Do they stop on the brink of pulling the trigger and think, oh hang on, I might get a lethal injection for this? Some might, but then they are more than likely the ones who wouldn't do it in the first place. The fact is, in the US, they regularly execute people, so the death penalty is hardly acting as a deterrent.
It may well be people with liberal attitudes who have allowed the criminal to take over from the man in the street, but that has nothing to do with the killing people - prison is a soft option for most crimes these days. Proper sentancing, life meaning life, and old-fashioned tough conditions inside I am all in favour of, but please don't try to suggest to me that anyone has the supreme authority to order the taking of another human life.
Martin
Well I did I type a big long response to this but the site crashed when I hit 'submit' so now I'm even more worked up than when I read the post......
rcgbob44
12-Oct-2006, 08:25
Providing there is non contestable evidence, DNA etc, Kill them.
I would be quite prepared to offer my services to exterminate kiddy fidlers, one bullet should do the trick after the others have been placed in the knees, anckles, wrists, elbows etc!!..................sorry forgot the hot poker in the nether regions first.
The way it was is that you had to satisfy you local Chief Constable that you had a legitimate reason for having a gun and you had to keep it secure in your property - the only reasonable excuse was that you were a full member of a licenced gun club and could only use your gun on certified shooting ranges. You could be visited by your local police at any reasonable time and all your security arrangements checked along with an assessment made of your attitude and suitability to retain your licence.
Like America? - only nowerdays I'm afraid :(
I think the first question on the form should be, do you want a gun? If you answer "yes" then thats a good enough reason to refuse! (Quote ;Insp Fowler, thin blue line)
You can ban what you like, guns, knives, screwdrivers, any other pointy things but it still won't work. You should be able to carry a knife, the problem only arises when it is used to harm others, which would happen far less often if the law was applied more positively. We have seen a plethora of unworkable, pointless, complex legislation under this government none of which is necessary if the judicial system applied the basic original laws rigidly.
As to the death penalty there are numerous occasions when it would not deter a total nutcase drugged out of his skull but a lot less people would carry guns in the commision of calculated crime if they thought they might pay the ultimate price if they killed someone.
Surely if the threat of the death penalty existed and saved some innocent lives it would be justifiable ? You'll never see a return to hard labour or life meaning life in terms of a jail sentence, the judiciary are just too soft for that.
You saved me a lot of typing Paul, well said.
rcgbob, if you need an apprentice for your next job, just drop me a pm
philthy
12-Oct-2006, 13:54
Sorry Phil,
Not sure I can agree with you here. Yes, I fully take your point that we expect Police to stand up and protect us with nothing more than their uniform to protect them, and despite all complaints we constantly hear, I'm grateful to them for the work they do, and I'm happy to live in a society where I'm not afraid of the Police themselves, but I have to ask, does the death penalty work as a deterrant? I think not.
Take the US as an example - it's been cited further on in this thread - Everyone has the right to bear arms, and plenty of people carry weapons, and there is also the death penalty to act as a deterrent, so why do people still kill each other? Do they stop on the brink of pulling the trigger and think, oh hang on, I might get a lethal injection for this? Some might, but then they are more than likely the ones who wouldn't do it in the first place. The fact is, in the US, they regularly execute people, so the death penalty is hardly acting as a deterrent.
It may well be people with liberal attitudes who have allowed the criminal to take over from the man in the street, but that has nothing to do with the killing people - prison is a soft option for most crimes these days. Proper sentancing, life meaning life, and old-fashioned tough conditions inside I am all in favour of, but please don't try to suggest to me that anyone has the supreme authority to order the taking of another human life.
Martin
Martin
I can't realistically ever see the death penalty coming back and I think we are close enough on all your other sentencing ideas to vote for you as Home Secretary. When can you start? :D
Phil
[QUOTE=rcgbob44]Providing there is non contestable evidence, DNA etc, Kill them.QUOTE]
Too right, but there should be three crimes that get the ultimate remedy in my mind.
1. Preditory Paedophiles that murder children for gratification. Those acts are not natural and neither is Capital punishment in some eyes. Justice is served. Anybody going to disagree?
2. Deliberately going out armed and shooting a uniformed person that is going about there normal duty. Police Officer, Firemen, Ambulance personnel. I'll submit to, all traffic and speed trap wardens being fair game.
3. Terrorists, apart from Bobby Sands name any other the others of the H-block hunger striker if you're not a republican. Martyrs are only martyrs if you give 'em publicity, so don't end-ex.
The above must have DNA proven links with the crime. A 1 in 2 billion chance of being wrong puts paid to the old excuse it could have been the wrong person.
Crimes of passion such as Ruth Ellis get life, mercy killings by long married partner of suffiering spouse because the NHS is s.h.i.t.e get compassion and community service until they change the law.
Honour killings are murder full stop they hang!
Crimes such as Peter Sutcliffe and Myra Hindley hang.
Ains.
rcgbob44
12-Oct-2006, 15:30
Paul James has it totally right!
Henners, I still hold an FAC as well as a shot gun licence and I still only put holes in bits of paper and smash inocent clay pidgeons now and again.
The banning of hand guns, by the government, after Dunblane was a knee jerk reaction aimed at getting the vote in a general election and it worked, it also deprived a lot of people of a very pleasant past time and forced many many guns onto the black market for criminals. We must also not forget how many legitimate gun shops that went out of business and how many people lost there livings because of the government.
As to the question of the Olympic UIT shooting, I also think that the uk should not have been awarded the games due to the fact that we cannot train in the Uk in that dicipline.....................although I have heard a rumor that the government might relent and allow ownership of .22 & ,32 caliber guns so that we can train for the games....................mmmmmmmmmm I wonder!!!
Martin
I can't realistically ever see the death penalty coming back and I think we are close enough on all your other sentencing ideas to vote for you as Home Secretary. When can you start? :D
Phil
Not for me - you have to sh@g dodgy looking secretaries if you do that job.... :eek: :eek:
Henners
12-Oct-2006, 16:16
I really enjoyed my time target shooting but the current Mrs H doesn't want anything to do with guns so all that's stopped. She doesn't like bikes either - oh well :)
(Hey - one of my posts got through :lol: )
Im against capital punishment as it does not work. Its my personal opinion. Its the old eye for an eye thing. It makes the victims relatives feel better in the end. It doesnt actually stop the initial crime happening in the first place. In this case you are referring to, i think the correct judicial decision would be life in jail and that means life.
How do you know it doesn't work? I am convinced it would save many many lives.
Paul James
12-Oct-2006, 17:25
How do you know it doesn't work? I am convinced it would save many many lives.
It nearly always works, unless they don't get the drop right or tie the knot properly.
How do you know it doesn't work? I am convinced it would save many many lives.
If it worked, there would be no murders, and hence no executions, just like in the US.... er, no, something's not right there... :confused:
doogalman
12-Oct-2006, 19:58
They'd find it hard to re-offend, hanging from the end of a rope. I have allways been of the belief that the penalty should be a punnishment NOT a deterrant.
My darling wife feels they should be burried alive. Sweet girl she is.:D
Tonio600
12-Oct-2006, 20:05
How do you know it doesn't work? I am convinced it would save many many lives.
How do you know it would save many many lives? I'm know it does kill too many innocents.
Didn't you watch the green mile? :lol:
How do you know it would save many many lives? I'm know it does kill too many innocents.
Didn't you watch the green mile? :lol:
What is the Green Mile about?
Paul James
13-Oct-2006, 10:01
How do you know it would save many many lives? I'm know it does kill too many innocents.
Didn't you watch the green mile? :lol:
Yes and Doctor Who but I don't expect to see the tardis land in my back garden any time soon :lol: :lol:
Seriously though there is no disputing that it would make some potential murderers think twice before killing. We've already stated that it won't stop the mentally deranged or drugged up scumbags but it will without doubt stop some murders. It would without doubt stop people from re-offending !
I guess we have to get to a point in society where we consider whose human rights need protecting most; the innocent victim of murder or the perpetrator.
Yes and Doctor Who but I don't expect to see the tardis land in my back garden any time soon :lol: :lol:
Seriously though there is no disputing that it would make some potential murderers think twice before killing. We've already stated that it won't stop the mentally deranged or drugged up scumbags but it will without doubt stop some murders. It would without doubt stop people from re-offending !
I guess we have to get to a point in society where we consider whose human rights need protecting most; the innocent victim of murder or the perpetrator.
The reality of what you say is so patently obvious that I am amazed at the number of people who fail to give it credence.
Tonio600
13-Oct-2006, 11:49
Maybe because we go beyond the obvious.
What is obvious today may no longer be so tomorrow.
Maybe because we go beyond the obvious.
What is obvious today may no longer be so tomorrow.
Like Lord Phillips who believes that five years in prison is long enough to pay for any crime. Lord help us from such PC people.
Tonio600
13-Oct-2006, 12:29
You start your sentence with "Like" but I can't see the common point.
I totally get what Antoine is saying here. The injustice of executing someone who is later found to be innocent is a shattering idea for a society to accept, without counting the effect such a thing would have on the lives of those directly touched by it.
You would wish to avoid such injustices at all costs, of course. However, one such cost is that you are left with murderers who, in reality, live out a portion of their lives behind bars and who are then released back into society. For some, rehabilitation may have been possible, for others though, nothing has changed - they are still a person capable of murdering.
It has been suggested that execution for premeditated murder is no deterrent for some would-be murderers. On the other hand, I cannot believe for one moment that it would not be a deterrent for a large number of people. Execution would be a valuable tool in dissuading people contemplating murder, the sort of people for whom the possibility of 15 years imprisonment represents an acceptable risk compared to the potential benefit of "getting away with it". A counter-argument to this last point is "make life sentences mean life". However, you could end up incarcerating an innocent person for the rest of his life - if no evidence of his innocence comes to light, you have still taken his life away from him to an extent that rivals that of execution. If evidence comes to light, the innocent person walks free of prison - not unscathed by the experience. An innocent has escaped unjust execution, but you still do not have a valuable deterrent against murder.
In the end, you need to look at the matter as dispassionately as you possibly can. You have to balance to risk of injustice/miscarriage of justice where an innocent person is executed, against the injustice of a legal system that is not doing its utmost to protect innocent victims of murder. If you accept that execution is any form of deterrent, you must accept that it is an idea that deserves as least as much consideration as our fear of innocent people being executed.
I am not sure about the death penalty, seems an easy option for some, like the guy in the USA convicted of being part of 9/11. best thing is to let him rot in jail. But I don't see why I should pay for them either. They should be made to work to pay their keep, maybe they wont then have the energy to worry about which Sky package they should be asking for.
The "policeman", if he was a policeman, which I doubt, who shot the Brazilian was a very brave man, and most Londoners would agree. He did a very difficult job, and unfortunately for him, the information he was given by his superiors was wrong. He trusted his superiors and did his job to protect the rest of us. No comparison with the animal that killed the policewoman.
Tonio600
13-Oct-2006, 13:32
To me the problem is more why people sentenced to jail for life don't remain in jail for life. Is that a collective memory problem? Or maybe because they've been nice and behaved well for 15 years we assume they've paid their debt? No the victim(s) won't come back, so they must stay behind the bars.
Also I think we should allow them to die if they want (euthanasie? don't know the word in English...). I guess after 15-20 years behind the bars I would want to have a rest of it, and we can't either force them to stay alive behind the bars. They took a life, they can give theirs.
But in no way the justice should allow itself to kill somebody. Nobody and nothing should be allowed to kill somebody. The justice is not above the rules. And if you kill somebody, then you should be prepared to spend the rest of your life in a few square meters room.
Anyway. I think there was interesting views in that topic, but nothing made me change my opinion. I'm not saying I will never change it, and people thinking differently than me should not either. We never know what life will bring us.
I may have a son one day, and he may be innocentely murdered by a sick guy. But he may also be innocentely murdered by the justice because he was either at the wrong place at the wrong time (and a lot of people are), and because it would have been either him either the son of somebody who's much more important than me...
vBulletin v3.5.4, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.