FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Capital Punishment

Capital Punishment

Jump to: Newest in thread

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

Would you bring it back?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondsmiles.Woman over a year ago

little house on the praire

[Removed by poster at 31/12/11 19:05:11]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondsmiles.Woman over a year ago

little house on the praire

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *omaMan over a year ago

Glasgow

"Would you bring it back? "

YES

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

I know there was another thread on this from about 50 weeks ago, but it had 172 posts so thought id create this as there are new forum member who might have views on this as well as previous members.

It was also mentioned on another thread and thought it was a decent subject worthy of its own.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

Yes

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Yes. It seems crazy that tax payers should pay to keep a killer in relative luxury. Ok we sometimes get it wrong but that's a small price to pay.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ENDAROOSCouple over a year ago

South West London / Surrey

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *teborahCouple over a year ago

warrington

yes and corpral punnishment in schools also, didnt do me any harm

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

defo bring it back with DNA testing its almost impossible to get it wrong

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

yes bring it back

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

no too many mistakes made ie birmingham six and guildford four all found innocent after many years. had we had cp all would of been hung. there are others cases as well.

watch "let him have it" about derek bentley will answer your question.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

Id bring it back, if people had something to fear perhaps they would think twice before doing something.

I'm no politician or police officer and don't know the ins and outs of law but if punishments for crimes were more substantial in all aspects of law breaking i think and hope people would think twice.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

hmmm. ill say this

do i see some crimes as fit to be punishable by death. Yes

does it make me as bad as them. i say no but i`d be the lesser of the two evils.

we`re never gonna live in a perfect world

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

No. The premeditated taking of a life by the state is just as wrong as the taking of a life by an individual.

To those who say if we get it wrong every now then it's a small price to pay, would you still say that if it was one of your family ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Would you bring it back? "

We wouldn't be able to bring it back unless we left the EU.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"no too many mistakes made ie birmingham six and guildford four all found innocent after many years. had we had cp all would of been hung. there are others cases as well.

watch "let him have it" about derek bentley will answer your question."

But with DNA, various other forensic testing, this big brother (cctv) style country we live in today, surely the truth would be out there. Mobile gprs technology and i'm sure there are plenty of other things out there.

If there was any form of doubt over if a person was guilty then id hope the person wouldn't be given the death penalty but if there was definite evidence id be all for it

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Id bring it back, if people had something to fear perhaps they would think twice before doing something.

I'm no politician or police officer and don't know the ins and outs of law but if punishments for crimes were more substantial in all aspects of law breaking i tthink and hope people would think twice.

By your reckoning the USA must be one of the safest countries on the planet. After all many states still have the death penalty so the prisons are empty...right!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 31/12/11 19:18:08]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oantrimcpl2010Couple over a year ago

Lisburn

A lot of todays problems in society boils down to all this political correctness. When I was younger we had respect for authority, yes there was ones who abused that as well. A wrap around the knuckles at school or clip around the ear from the local bobby was something to be feared. We respected our elders. It may not have been perfect, but what is?

Ive said before Law and Order do not go hand in hand. Ive witnessed children as young as 14, have a list of convictions as long as your arm, and what happens, nothing to deterr them from going out and doing the same thing again. Then these small petty crimes(as they called)go onto escalate to bigger more serious crimes.

Until the law is changed nothing will change.

This is my opinion only

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

it never was a deterrent was it?????-most killings have a reason behind them(im not saying rightly or wrongly). But serial killers etc in that mould arent run of the mill killers they are compelled to kill...capital punishment wont deter them.

and sorry theres peverted justice..this never outweighs an innocent man being sentenced to prison let alone DEATH!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *etish fun and frolicsCouple over a year ago

Portsmouth

No, but i like the idea of deporting them to the Australian outback....do we still own it? lol

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *aceytopWoman over a year ago

from a town near you

most certainly not,for all the above reasons

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *obbytupperMan over a year ago

Menston near Ilkley

"Yes. It seems crazy that tax payers should pay to keep a killer in relative luxury. Ok we sometimes get it wrong but that's a small price to pay."

Try saying that when its your innocent head in the noose or a loved one.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"By your reckoning the USA must be one of the safest countries on the planet. After all many states still have the death penalty so the prisons are empty...right!

Imagine how bad it would be if they didnt.. like i said i don't know stats or nothing.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"No, but i like the idea of deporting them to the Australian outback....do we still own it? lol

Of course we do, they love their masters, and Queen

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"yes and corpral punnishment in schools also, didnt do me any harm

Yes to both..

Cali x

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *andKCouple over a year ago

Norfolk

Yes definately

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

jail them for life then and have them doin manual labour for most of it

may as well get some gd out of em if they get to live

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ouplefunukCouple over a year ago

North Bristol

"Would you bring it back?

We wouldn't be able to bring it back unless we left the EU.

Well THAT wouldn't be the worst decision this country ever made, would it!

*Her*

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"jail them for life then and have them doin manual labour for most of it

may as well get some gd out of em if they get to live"

that would be great if we could , enforce them to work , like in usa , HOWEVER unlike victims of crime the scum in prison have human rights ,

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Would you bring it back?

We wouldn't be able to bring it back unless we left the EU.

Well THAT wouldn't be the worst decision this country ever made, would it!

*Her* "

We think not too, but a debate on the death penalty is irrelevant as the EU won't allow it. Supranational powers over intergovernmental.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Capital punishment was not a deterent, people still murdered and, in fact, evidence shows that it can actualy exaserbate crimes (I will hang for one murder, will they hang me twice if I comit another?)

Also, justice is not perfect. The police and juries often make errors i their judgements and if you hang an innocent person it is ireversable.

Corporal punishment, on the other hand, I entirely agree with. I do believe that we would have a lot less petty crime and thoughtless violence if people were birched in the town centre (severe pain and humiliation, rather than the drawing of blood), or put into stocks, or made to parade around holding up a sign listing the crimes that they were convicted of.

However, the best way to reduce crime (because there is no such thing as a crimeless society) is proper rehabilitation and some degree of restorative justice.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Yes.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

its not foolproof so no

if it was foolproof? still no

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

HELL YES !!!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Yes. It seems crazy that tax payers should pay to keep a killer in relative luxury. Ok we sometimes get it wrong but that's a small price to pay."

Oh gee, well that should be comforting to the family of a person murdered by the state for being an innocent man.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

YES BUT

Only for cases of absolutey NO doubt

Also as much evidence as poss to back it up

Also 10 years with all the help nessasary for the acussed to build their case if they think they have been improperly treated xx

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *stwoforfun2Couple over a year ago

South Suffolk Area

Absolutely not. Too many mistakes made.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Yes. It seems crazy that tax payers should pay to keep a killer in relative luxury. Ok we sometimes get it wrong but that's a small price to pay."

A small price to pay?..I would say its the exact opposite

It's the ultimate price which is why you have to get it right.and we have a habit of getting it wrong

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *arkstaffsMan over a year ago

Rugeley

Capital punishment? Absolutely no way. No civilised country should be allowed to murder its citizens.

A few names to remember:

Timothy Evans

Derek Bentley

Just two of those who were hanged by the neck for murders that they did not commit.

Leave capital (and corporal) punishment in the history books where it belongs.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

If capital punishment was still around in the 70's you could add the birmingham six and guiltless four to that list. Thankfully it wasnt

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *U1966Man over a year ago

Devon

Bring it back and clear some prison space

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *weet threesome wifeCouple over a year ago

somewhere out there

they put a dog down "execute" it if it bites, baby killers old people killers race hate killers get life 25years looked after by the state "us" guarded fed heated cells tv's fuck them, old people that worked obayed the law freeze and starve to death, is that justice, as said before chances gettin it wrong now is almost nile, why pay to keep them alive and in a lot of cases give the new identity when they get out so they can enjoy the rest of their lives while their victims familys life sentencew is life

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *els_BellsWoman over a year ago

with the moon n stars somewhere in gtr manc

Yes and no.

If there was no doubt and the evidence was completly safe then maybe, for example, ian huntly and that thing that shot rhys jones, or that other thing that shot the student in salford for alledgedly having a foreign accent, but then I think about the contaminated dna so it would be a no. Just make prisons tougher and make life mean life!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I'd get a far greater sense of satisfaction if a murderer in say 40 years time, asked to be released saying what a changed person he was and the Home Secretary said, "Sorry, but your victim is still dead, no can do."

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Would you bring it back? "

For f**k sake read up on legal history over the last 100+ yrs & you will see how many people have been charged for crimes not committed.

We can not believe how naive some people are.

If you are going to start a forum on legal issues why would you hide your profile?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *weet threesome wifeCouple over a year ago

somewhere out there

We can not believe how naive some people are.

and keeping them paying for them isnt naive hoping they may change, we all pay one way or another for liberal minded do gooders victims and law abiding working people to keep scum, once proved beyond doubt, beyond all doubt they should pay and lessen any further burden, god can sort them out

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oournsMan over a year ago

"Id bring it back, if people had something to fear perhaps they would think twice before doing something.

"
factually incorrect. Its shown that the death penalty is the opposite of a deterant, same with armed police

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oournsMan over a year ago

"Id bring it back, if people had something to fear perhaps they would think twice before doing something.

"
factually incorrect. Its shown that the death penalty is the opposite of a deterant, same with armed police

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oournsMan over a year ago

"Id bring it back, if people had something to fear perhaps they would think twice before doing something.

"
factually incorrect. Its shown that the death penalty is the opposite of a deterant, same with armed police

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Would you bring it back?

For f**k sake read up on legal history over the last 100+ yrs & you will see how many people have been charged for crimes not committed.

We can not believe how naive some people are.

If you are going to start a forum on legal issues why would you hide your profile?

erm calm down, no need to swear its a question and secondly whats my profile being hidden got anything to do with anything?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Would you bring it back?

For f**k sake read up on legal history over the last 100+ yrs & you will see how many people have been charged for crimes not committed.

We can not believe how naive some people are.

If you are going to start a forum on legal issues why would you hide your profile?

Why not? Her question is genuine... And its an open forum.

Some will agree... Some wont... If you dont like the premis, you dont have to join the thread

And including "for fuck sake" only serves to greatly reduce the efficacity of an adult capacity to debate an issue...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

cheers Eurotongue xx

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oournsMan over a year ago

Thankfully the reins of power and justice are not held by anyone here. Firstly the ignorant deterant argument. Then the emotive argument, no place for emotion in legal system. Then the a few innocent may die but so what argument. Jesus wept.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Bringing back the death sentence, come on this is supposed to be the 21st century. I know the country is cutting back but there is no justification in capital punishment. Don’t be fooled by advances in dna and scientific investigations, these are only as accurate or as honest as the people who perform the tests. As for being a deterrent, don’t make me laugh. Over the years this has probably become one of most researched areas of criminal justice, the death sentence does not deter people. I cant think of one piece of serious research that supports that assumption. Before we try and tame society by culling it maybe we ought to revisit some of the stupid, pointless, expensive and completely un-intellectual laws that somehow have appeared on the statute book. this generally happens as an unconsidered and un-intellectual knee jerk reaction that is based on emotion rather than reasoned thinking.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oournsMan over a year ago

From minds far superior to ours

"What says the law? You will not

kill. How does it say it? By killing!"

-Victor Hugo, author of Les

Miserables

"capital punishment is the most premeditated of murders"

french philosopher, albert camus

"an eye for an eye will leave the world blind"

mothatma gandhi

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"From minds far superior to ours

"What says the law? You will not

kill. How does it say it? By killing!"

-Victor Hugo, author of Les

Miserables

"capital punishment is the most premeditated of murders"

french philosopher, albert camus

"an eye for an eye will leave the world blind"

mothatma gandhi"

that just about covers every angle i think...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oournsMan over a year ago

"By your reckoning the USA must be one of the safest countries on the planet. After all many states still have the death penalty so the prisons are empty...right!

Imagine how bad it would be if they didnt.. like i said i don't know stats or nothing."
well you are wrong. Crime rates in US states with the death penalty are higher than those without. Its an opinion, and its wrong, and i dont mean this personally but people who cant be bothered to do the research should educate themselves before they express their stances. Not all opinions are equal.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 31/12/11 23:49:30]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

US prisons are not empty, far from it. When an individual enters death row they are often held for 15 years before execution. Yet another US false economy

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Thankfully the reins of power and justice are not held by anyone here. Firstly the ignorant deterant argument. Then the emotive argument, no place for emotion in legal system. Then the a few innocent may die but so what argument. Jesus wept."

And it is ever thus in public debate... For, against and the middle grounders...

Without it, for example, there would be no format to TV programming from Question Time to Kilroy...

And Jesus wept for all mankind...;-)

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

ok im wrong on a lot of stuff but id still bring it back

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oournsMan over a year ago

"From minds far superior to ours

"What says the law? You will not

kill. How does it say it? By killing!"

-Victor Hugo, author of Les

Miserables

"capital punishment is the most premeditated of murders"

french philosopher, albert camus

"an eye for an eye will leave the world blind"

mothatma gandhi

that just about covers every angle i think...

"
not quite. From the law and order side

"i have never heard a murderer

say they thought about the death

penalty as consequence of their

actions prior to committing their

crimes."

-Gregory Ruff, police lieutenant in

Kansas

"As if one crime of such nature,

done by a single man, acting

individually, can be expiated by a

similar crime done by all men,

acting collectively."

-Lewis Lawes, warden of Sing

Sing prison in NY in the 1920s

and 30s

"Crime indicates a diseased mind

in the same manner that sickness

and pain do a diseased body.

And as in the one case we

provide hospitals for the

treatment of severe and

contagious diseases, so in the

other, prisons and asylums

should be provided for similar

reasons."

-Iowa State Supreme Court

justice in the 1840s

"If Moses is our lawgiver [Old

Testament prophet given laws by

God] at this time let us obey him,

not in part only, but wholly, and

put every Sabbath breaker,

blasphemer, and adulterer to

death."

-Abolitionist in the 1840s

"How dangerous it is rashly to

adopt the Mosaical institutions

[Old Testament teachings of eye

for an eye]. Laws might have

been proper for a tribe of ardent

barbarians wandering through

the sands of Arabia which are

wholly unfit for an enlightened

people of civilized and gentle

manners."

-an attorney general of

Pennsylvania in the 1790s

"Imposition of the death penalty

is arbitrary and capricious.

Decision of who will live and who

will die for his crime turns less

on the nature of the offense and

the incorrigibility of the offender

and more on inappropriate and

indefensible considerations: the

political and personal inclinations

of prosecutors; the defendant's

wealth, race and intellect; the

race and economic status of the

victim; the quality of the

defendant's counsel; and the

resources allocated to defense

lawyers."

-Gerald Heaney, former appellate

judge

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oournsMan over a year ago

"ok im wrong on a lot of stuff but id still bring it back "
why. You said because it was a deterant. Its not.

Then it can only be vengeance. Desmond tutu said "the act of the state taking a life for the crime of murder is not justice, but revenge"

should rapists be raped, stabbers stabbed, gbh be met with gbh.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

i get the impression _oourns is against the idea then..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"ok im wrong on a lot of stuff but id still bring it back why. You said because it was a deterant. Its not.

Then it can only be vengeance. Desmond tutu said "the act of the state taking a life for the crime of murder is not justice, but revenge"

should rapists be raped, stabbers stabbed, gbh be met with gbh. "

ive said id bring it back woop de do. Why should a man or woman be allowed to live when they have taken a life? We disagree its life, you dont agree with it, i do

Now happy new year

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 01/01/12 00:02:01]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oournsMan over a year ago

And it is ever thus in public debate... For, against and the middle grounders...

Without it, for example, there would be no format to TV programming from Question Time to Kilroy...

And Jesus wept for all mankind...;-)"
sadly this 24 hour, "have your say on this story" culture has led to the usurping of knowledge by opinion. We are led to believe that all views are equal, valid, of merit. A sad fallacy.

The irony is that the death penalty is most strongly supported by the "religious", whose saviour was the victim of the death penalty through a miscarriage of justice, if you believe that tosh.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"ok im wrong on a lot of stuff but id still bring it back "

Quick scenario for you:

It appears a man has killed a woman having raped her, all the evidence says he did it so he is convicted and given the death sentence. years later advances in technology prove he did not do it. So what do we say to his wife and his kids, well we may have wait for his wife to sober up and book a visit at a YOI because little tommy is now and understandably rebelling against society.

I worked with a guy once who had been convicted of a really gruesome offence he got 18 years, 40 + years ago it would been death. After 17 years inside he was told the system had got it wrong and he was innocent as he had always stated.

I certainly aint a liberal and definitely not a do gooder, the death sentence is wrong because as a society it means we have stopped thinking

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oournsMan over a year ago

"ok im wrong on a lot of stuff but id still bring it back why. You said because it was a deterant. Its not.

Then it can only be vengeance. Desmond tutu said "the act of the state taking a life for the crime of murder is not justice, but revenge"

should rapists be raped, stabbers stabbed, gbh be met with gbh.

ive said id bring it back woop de do. Why should a man or woman be allowed to live when they have taken a life? We disagree its life, you dont agree with it, i do

Now happy new year "
because who are you to take a life. Or to decide that a life may be taken. Whats worse to take a life in anger and passion, or to coldly rationally determine the time, to the minute and hour that another humans existence will end.

If you dont want your views dissected and you cant handle debate, i would advise dont provide your opinions on a forum.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"ok im wrong on a lot of stuff but id still bring it back why. You said because it was a deterant. Its not.

Then it can only be vengeance. Desmond tutu said "the act of the state taking a life for the crime of murder is not justice, but revenge"

should rapists be raped, stabbers stabbed, gbh be met with gbh.

ive said id bring it back woop de do. Why should a man or woman be allowed to live when they have taken a life? We disagree its life, you dont agree with it, i do

Now happy new year "

you kinda answered your own question..you said killing is wrong..and it is. so why should state sponsored murder be exempt?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oournsMan over a year ago

"ok im wrong on a lot of stuff but id still bring it back

Quick scenario for you:

I certainly aint a liberal and definitely not a do gooder, the death sentence is wrong because as a society it means we have stopped thinking

"
there is no need to lower the debate to the emotive side.

Facts are its not a deterant.

Furthermore it costs more to execute a man then imprison him life, so bang goes the economic argument. A barbaric argument in itself, lets kill a man, because we incorrectly think its cheaper.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

i would bring it back.. its MY opinion.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

with respect the above is based in fact

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oournsMan over a year ago

"i would bring it back.. its MY opinion."
and as i said you are wrong in your justification for it, your rationale for it and thankfully, for now anyway, opinion doesnt trump fact. And thats for all who blithely answered yes, not just you. You at least tried to give a reason, however erronious it was.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ouple in LancashireCouple over a year ago

in Lancashire

"Would you bring it back? "

No, and refer you back to your post and my response on breeders 3...

it will not happen, same as we cant turn back time...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *arkstaffsMan over a year ago

Rugeley

Thankfully capital punishment was finally abolished in the UK in 1998.

There is no proof that it ever acted as a deterrent.

In the words of Albert Pierrepoint himself, 'Capital punishment, in my view, achieved nothing except revenge'

And who better to give an opinion on hanging than him?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oournsMan over a year ago

"Thankfully capital punishment was finally abolished in the UK in 1998.

There is no proof that it ever acted as a deterrent.

In the words of Albert Pierrepoint himself, 'Capital punishment, in my view, achieved nothing except revenge'

And who better to give an opinion on hanging than him?"
cue people asking who is he.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

lol

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oournsMan over a year ago

Some words from those directly involved

"The reality is that capital

punishment in America is a

lottery. It is a punishment that is

shaped by the constraints of

poverty, race, geography and

local politics."

-Bryan Stevenson, Death Row

lawyer

"It can be argued that rapists

deserve to be raped, that

mutilators deserve to be

mutilated. Most societies,

however, refrain from

responding in this way because

the punishment is not only

degrading to those on whom it

is imposed, but it is also

degrading to the society that

engages in the same behavior as

the criminals."

-Stephen Bright, human rights

attorney

"I think this country would be

much better off if we did not

have capital punishment.... We

cannot ignore the fact that in

recent years a disturbing number

of inmates on death row have

been exonerated."

-John Paul Stevens, U.S. Supreme

Court Justice

"Society may protect itself

without putting a human to

death as it would a wild animal.

Since we believe each person has

a soul, and is capable of

achieving salvation, life in prison

is now an alternative to the

death penalty."

-Richard Viguerie and Brent

Bozell, Tea Party supporters

"I've been haunted by the men I

was asked to execute in the

name of the state of Florida. This

is premeditated, carefully

thought out ceremonial killing."

-Ron McAndrew, was a prison

warden in Florida

"I'm of the opinion that we

should eliminate capital

punishment. Having been

involved with justice agencies

around the world, it's been

somewhat embarrassing, quite

frankly, that nations just as so-

called civilized as ours think

we're barbaric because we still

have capital punishment."

-Reginald Wilkinson, was a

prison director in Ohio

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Thankfully capital punishment was finally abolished in the UK in 1998.

There is no proof that it ever acted as a deterrent.

In the words of Albert Pierrepoint himself, 'Capital punishment, in my view, achieved nothing except revenge'

And who better to give an opinion on hanging than him?"

...and once he had finished the rest of that paragraph...;-);-)

He also went on to state in a radio interview that he would "Go back" if the crime were serious enough.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *abioMan over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

no... because 1 mistake is an innocent life too many... and i have have made the point that no one who ever says yes answers...

"what do you say to the family of the person who you executed wrongly?"...

oops!!! my bad!!!! sorry!!!....

actually.. i have changed my opinion slightly...

put it to a referemdum... that was we all have the names of those who said yes...

okay.. so bring it back... one stipulation though!

those who bring it back should also be executed if there is found to be one wrong case....

you want it back and believe it is fullproof... back that up with your life!!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Should castrate pedophiles and child killers though.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oournsMan over a year ago

"Should castrate pedophiles and child killers though."
no you shouldnt. It prevents nothing, just another barbaric act

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nvyCouple over a year ago

Waltham Cross

Police and judges can be just as corrupt as your average joe infact they were notorious for fit ups and brutality only a few decades ago which sparked things like the broad water farm riots etc.

Capital punishment would start anarchy in this country and would give way too much authority to a corrupt and greedy government. As for corporal punishment in schools would any of you be happy having some substitute teacher take a Cain to your child because they disliked them??

Good discussion thread but I for one will have to say a big fat No lol

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"As for corporal punishment in schools would any of you be happy having some substitute teacher take a Cain to your child because they disliked them??

Good discussion thread but I for one will have to say a big fat No lol"

I would be happy for a teacher to take a cane to my kid if he was effing a blinding at the teacher and preventing other kids from learning.....

My supposition for corporal punishment is about the embarasment of people who do the wrong thing. School is an ideal example.

Kids play up in school to look big in front of their peers and potential partners, if they were made to look foolish when they played up, they would soon stop. I dare say that many of them do not behave because their parents do not support authority and your comment about substitute teachers pinpoints it. Even subs are educated properly (since they have to have post grad qualifications, they are probably beter educated than most of us posting). Why should they not be worthy of respect just because they are substitutes, not regular teachers?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nvyCouple over a year ago

Waltham Cross

"As for corporal punishment in schools would any of you be happy having some substitute teacher take a Cain to your child because they disliked them??

Good discussion thread but I for one will have to say a big fat No lol

I would be happy for a teacher to take a cane to my kid if he was effing a blinding at the teacher and preventing other kids from learning.....

My supposition for corporal punishment is about the embarasment of people who do the wrong thing. School is an ideal example.

Who said anything about the child effing and blinding? Oh so a hyperactive seven year old deserves to be hit simply because they are only acting up 'to look big infront of their peers and potential partners'? Not everyone's children have a tendency to swear or be disrespectful and sometimes back in the days of corporal punishment kids were punished just for not picking up a subject as fast as the teacher wanted.

I have no problem with authority I'm just expressing that everyone has faults whether you are a teacher, judge or a common labourer and who monitors the person being given such authority. By the way I was using the term substitute teacher lightly so you can lose the erection, what I said goes towards any teacher. If my child was a rude little shit then I would discipline him myself.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Yes

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"As for corporal punishment in schools would any of you be happy having some substitute teacher take a Cain to your child because they disliked them??

Good discussion thread but I for one will have to say a big fat No lol

I would be happy for a teacher to take a cane to my kid if he was effing a blinding at the teacher and preventing other kids from learning.....

My supposition for corporal punishment is about the embarasment of people who do the wrong thing. School is an ideal example.

Then from my experience (and from the anecdotal evidence) if you would discipline your child you are in the tiny minority......

I remember getting into a little trouble when I was a young adolescent. The copper who picked me up was a local bloke, he knew me and my dad (who was a prison officer). He couldn't clip me round the ear, but told me to walk home. By the time I had gotten back to our house, he had called round and told my old man what had happened (a little vandalism). My old fella gave me what seemed like a real hiding (but was really a lot of shouting and a few smacks on my legs and bottom). Not only did it keep me too scared to get into any more trouble, but my younger brother learned from the experience and never got into any trouble at all.

In a lot of senses that little story shows up some bad things. According to the law the copper should have taken me in to the station and charged me, my old man should not have hit me (not to mention that I should not have been commiting the act of vandalism), but afterwards, I did not feel big or clever, no permanent physical damage was done and my life was not permanently damaged by a criminal record......

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"no too many mistakes made ie birmingham six and guildford four all found innocent after many years. had we had cp all would of been hung. there are others cases as well.

watch "let him have it" about derek bentley will answer your question."

Guilfrd four is always my biggest argument for not bring its back, they was all guilty, they had DNA results to prove they was, because they was set up by our very own police

Along with the guilford four they also sentanced 7 other people from the conlon family as they was supposed to be providing a 'safe house' for the bomber there for aiding them in their work

Anne Maguire served 14 years

Patrick Maguire 14 years

Patrick Maguire jr 4 years aged only 14 years old

Vincent Maguire 5 years aged only 17

Sean Smyth 12 years

Patrick O'Neill 12 years

Patrick "Guiseppe" Conlon 12 years but died in prison while serving his 11th years

The actual Guilford four had served 15 years of their life sentanced when they was found innocent, carole richardson was only 17 years old when sentanced to life

All of the above was innocent people who was set up by the police who was under extream pressure to get a conviction

Their only crime was, as Gareth Peirce put it in court, they was bloody irish and in the wrong place at the wrong time

In court their alibi was produced that at the time of the hearing had been hidden by the police, with a note attached saying...not to be shown to the defence! had it been show it would have proven all these pople innocent

When they was sentaced the judge, when doing his speach said, i find it only a shame hanging is not still law, a sentance i would have no problem passing in this case!

That would have been four innocent people dead

When mistakes are made, or in extream cases people are set up by the police, you simply can not bring people back from the dead

So altho everyone has their own views and opinions i personally would never bring back the death sentence

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *arkstaffsMan over a year ago

Rugeley

And neither would I. For those very reasons.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *r-MissCouple over a year ago

Derbyshire

Perhaps some murderers murder because their brains aren't wired up like a normal person, this common defence in the US, tests and scans can pick up brain abnormalities, what should be done with these defectives? What would be learned from executing them and how would it benefit us?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *waymanMan over a year ago

newcastle

"Would you bring it back?

For f**k sake read up on legal history over the last 100+ yrs & you will see how many people have been charged for crimes not committed.

We can not believe how naive some people are.

If you are going to start a forum on legal issues why would you hide your profile?

erm calm down, no need to swear its a question and secondly whats my profile being hidden got anything to do with anything?"

I think he's implying you're somewhat of a troll. I think the jury's out on that one.I'm always intrigued when people start this kind of thread and don't seem to contribute much though.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 01/01/12 08:58:19]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Would you bring it back?

For f**k sake read up on legal history over the last 100+ yrs & you will see how many people have been charged for crimes not committed.

We can not believe how naive some people are.

If you are going to start a forum on legal issues why would you hide your profile?

erm calm down, no need to swear its a question and secondly whats my profile being hidden got anything to do with anything?

I think he's implying you're somewhat of a troll. I think the jury's out on that one.I'm always intrigued when people start this kind of thread and don't seem to contribute much though."

Thanks for that, i said in the 4th post down why i started this thread and i have had my own opinions throughout it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *waymanMan over a year ago

newcastle

"ok im wrong on a lot of stuff but id still bring it back why. You said because it was a deterant. Its not.

Then it can only be vengeance. Desmond tutu said "the act of the state taking a life for the crime of murder is not justice, but revenge"

should rapists be raped, stabbers stabbed, gbh be met with gbh.

ive said id bring it back woop de do. Why should a man or woman be allowed to live when they have taken a life? We disagree its life, you dont agree with it, i do

Now happy new year "

Here's the problem. You appear to believe that courts always get it right. I know the courts don't, and have met people you would gladly have seen killed who were later found innocent. You appear untroubled by that reality. I don't know about you, but to be as flippant and casual as you are about the judicial murder of the innocent is quite troubling..

In a country where free, effective legal aid is becoming increasingly rare your views would reduce life or death to the kind of judicial lottery the USA indulges itself in.

By the way, for the benefit of some people in this thread, I am a do gooder. I try to do good every day. Who wouldn't try to do good every day?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *waymanMan over a year ago

newcastle

"Would you bring it back?

For f**k sake read up on legal history over the last 100+ yrs & you will see how many people have been charged for crimes not committed.

We can not believe how naive some people are.

If you are going to start a forum on legal issues why would you hide your profile?

erm calm down, no need to swear its a question and secondly whats my profile being hidden got anything to do with anything?

I think he's implying you're somewhat of a troll. I think the jury's out on that one.I'm always intrigued when people start this kind of thread and don't seem to contribute much though.

Thanks for that, i said in the 4th post down why i started this thread and i have had my own opinions throughout it."

Yes, but you can probably accept that others might think they're quite shallow opinions can't you? I can't decide if they actually are shallow opinions, or if you're keener on argument than agreement, but I can see that others might have their own conclusions about that.

Incidentally, I can see that you might think I'm being patronizing, I'm trying not to, but it's hard to see why you bothered starting the trhead.

I can't think of a single thread on this sort of topic on here that ended well, and you've acknowledged that we've done all this before, but off we go again.

Why bother?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

" I think he's implying you're somewhat of a troll. I think the jury's out on that one.I'm always intrigued when people start this kind of thread and don't seem to contribute much though."

I think you will find that Boourns, who has provided this thread with a reference section of information to support his opinion, feels strongly enough to state what he feels... And certainly is not the type to descend to personal attack on the OP, who posted this thread to learn other peoples opinions, having given hers. In a huge return of posts, there is only one person who has made a direct personal attack.... Just a thought.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

yeh so the death pen isnt a deterent.

still better than housing em in some cases.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *waymanMan over a year ago

newcastle

" I think he's implying you're somewhat of a troll. I think the jury's out on that one.I'm always intrigued when people start this kind of thread and don't seem to contribute much though.

Who's made a direct personal attack?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ouple in LancashireCouple over a year ago

in Lancashire

Why bother?"

attention seeking perhaps?

starting this and other similar contentious threads is part n parcel of the forums imho..

however, when people do so they should at least avail themselves of a little bit of information on the pro's and cons of the issue..

how can anyone (not just the OP), have a viewpoint on an issue such as this without looking at the facts and the historical evidence beforehand..?

its not like saying 'i like custard' with my christmas pud, yes others will say they prefer cream or something else and no big deal either way..

'cos when we choose a desert topping we are talking about just that, this is about life and the taking of that life..

yes there are some vile scum who have committed the most disgusting acts banged up out of the way and yes they would be dead n buried had we still had capital punishment...

but so would INNOCENT people, cos the system is not 100% eficient..

cos the media scream for a fast result whenever such a crime occurs especially if its kids, this builds pressure for a result..

a locked away file for decades which corroborates someones innocence is not justice..

nor an uncalled witness to provide an alibi, or a bent or lazy copper..

there is no such thing as life after death, once you kill someone they are gone..

and it has happened and will do so again where someone will be left in a cell who did not do the crime..Fact..

this topic deserves more than just 'bring it back' or 'string them up' responses...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

" I think he's implying you're somewhat of a troll. I think the jury's out on that one.I'm always intrigued when people start this kind of thread and don't seem to contribute much though.

Who's made a direct personal attack?"

" implying (on someone elses behalf) you're are somewhat of a troll" was my first clue...

Meanwhile... Back to the OPs thread...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oournsMan over a year ago

"yeh so the death pen isnt a deterent.

still better than housing em in some cases. "
why is it better though.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *waymanMan over a year ago

newcastle

" I think he's implying you're somewhat of a troll. I think the jury's out on that one.I'm always intrigued when people start this kind of thread and don't seem to contribute much though.

Who's made a direct personal attack?

" implying (on someone elses behalf) you're are somewhat of a troll" was my first clue...

Meanwhile... Back to the OPs thread..."

I'm sure you think selective quoting is really clever.

The whole quote is

"I think he's implying you're somewhat of a troll. I think the jury's out on that one."

Did you not read the bit about the just being out on that one? Or are you just indulging yourself in personal attacks?

Happy New Year...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *waymanMan over a year ago

newcastle

" I think he's implying you're somewhat of a troll. I think the jury's out on that one.I'm always intrigued when people start this kind of thread and don't seem to contribute much though.

Who's made a direct personal attack?

" implying (on someone elses behalf) you're are somewhat of a troll" was my first clue...

Meanwhile... Back to the OPs thread...

I'm sure you think selective quoting is really clever.

The whole quote is

"I think he's implying you're somewhat of a troll. I think the jury's out on that one."

Did you not read the bit about the just being out on that one? Or are you just indulging yourself in personal attacks?

Happy New Year..."
#jury

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oournsMan over a year ago

" I think he's implying you're somewhat of a troll. I think the jury's out on that one.I'm always intrigued when people start this kind of thread and don't seem to contribute much though.

Who's made a direct personal attack?

" implying (on someone elses behalf) you're are somewhat of a troll" was my first clue...

Meanwhile... Back to the OPs thread...

I'm sure you think selective quoting is really clever.

The whole quote is

"I think he's implying you're somewhat of a troll. I think the jury's out on that one."

Did you not read the bit about the just being out on that one? Or are you just indulging yourself in personal attacks?

Happy New Year...#jury"
maybe not trolling but ignorant of the facts behind her contentions. Which if you care enough about an issue to start a thread, then maybe do a little research before.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

because i think its punishment befitting the crimes in some cases

(slightly off top)

the police force need to toughen up their approach to crime in general tbh. enoughs enough. take back the streets

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"maybe not trolling but ignorant of the facts behind her contentions. Which if you care enough about an issue to start a thread, then maybe do a little research before."

I started the thread to give others the chance to debate the subject and everyone is entitled to opinions. It was brought up (admitidley sarcastically) in another thread with a strong theme and thought this topic would make for good view points and something to get their teeth into.

Im not an expert clearly but its not to say i can not have a view point on an issue. You don't agree with my opinions thats fine

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oournsMan over a year ago

"because i think its punishment befitting the crimes in some cases

(slightly off top)

the police force need to toughen up their approach to crime in general tbh. enoughs enough. take back the streets

"
so to punish horrors, we commit horror.

I understand its your opinion and you have not fancied it up with spurious logic, just revulsion for the crime.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"because i think its punishment befitting the crimes in some cases

(slightly off top)

the police force need to toughen up their approach to crime in general tbh. enoughs enough. take back the streets

so to punish horrors, we commit horror.

I understand its your opinion and you have not fancied it up with spurious logic, just revulsion for the crime.

like i said in an earlier post it doesnt make us as bad as them, but it would be the lesser of the 2 evils by a mile. get ur head in the real world and not this perfect idea of one

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"because i think its punishment befitting the crimes in some cases

(slightly off top)

the police force need to toughen up their approach to crime in general tbh. enoughs enough. take back the streets

so to punish horrors, we commit horror.

I understand its your opinion and you have not fancied it up with spurious logic, just revulsion for the crime.

like i said in an earlier post it doesnt make us as bad as them, but it would be the lesser of the 2 evils by a mile. get ur head in the real world and not this perfect idea of one "

We could go back to the bad old days like in Liverpool in the 80s where a majority of police officers were brutal to the extreme. Give someone enough power and they'll use it, give it to them in absolute and it will corrupt them absolutely.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oournsMan over a year ago

"because i think its punishment befitting the crimes in some cases

(slightly off top)

the police force need to toughen up their approach to crime in general tbh. enoughs enough. take back the streets

so to punish horrors, we commit horror.

I understand its your opinion and you have not fancied it up with spurious logic, just revulsion for the crime.

like i said in an earlier post it doesnt make us as bad as them, but it would be the lesser of the 2 evils by a mile. get ur head in the real world and not this perfect idea of one "

why not imprison for life.

i am in the real world. The one where the state doesnt execute its citizens. Where the majority are opposed to the death penalty. Where there are no logical reasons for its existence.

What world are you in ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

a world that needs change

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oournsMan over a year ago

"a world that needs change"
and killing people achieves this how. It doesnt act as a deterent, it costs more than imprisonment. How is it changing the world

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"a world that needs change"

Change, yes. State-endorsed murder, no.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

lol this back n forth bullshit could go on forever. i`d be for it and ur against it

lets just leave it at that

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oournsMan over a year ago

"lol this back n forth bullshit could go on forever. i`d be for it and ur against it

lets just leave it at that

"
in other words, i have no rational argument for my position.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

i said my lil bit before you got involved mate. unlike u im not here to argue and prolong the arguement aslong as i can

if anyones trolling its u

happy newyear

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *opman69Man over a year ago

Wrexham

Without a doubt bring it back for serious crimes such as pre meditated murder and where there is dna evidence

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oournsMan over a year ago

"i said my lil bit before you got involved mate. unlike u im not here to argue and prolong the arguement aslong as i can

if anyones trolling its u

happy newyear"

a) didnt say you were trolling

b) this is a forum, by very definition its a place of debate and exchange of knowledge

c) how is pointing out facts and logic trolling. If you dont want your undeveloped opinion analysed, keep it to yourself. Im not saying you should be silent, but dont throw out accusations of trolling when questioned.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

" I think he's implying you're somewhat of a troll. I think the jury's out on that one.I'm always intrigued when people start this kind of thread and don't seem to contribute much though.

Who's made a direct personal attack?

" implying (on someone elses behalf) you're are somewhat of a troll" was my first clue...

Meanwhile... Back to the OPs thread...

I'm sure you think selective quoting is really clever.

The whole quote is

"I think he's implying you're somewhat of a troll. I think the jury's out on that one."

Did you not read the bit about the just being out on that one? Or are you just indulging yourself in personal attacks?

Happy New Year...#jurymaybe not trolling but ignorant of the facts behind her contentions. Which if you care enough about an issue to start a thread, then maybe do a little research before."

This isn't a University. The O.P. is not giving a lecture.

If anything she is philosophising by raising questions.

She never purported to have the answers.

She can learn what others think and form opinons from there when 'non pompous' posters post without moralising, judging and controlling.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rumalexMan over a year ago

Birmingham

i an against

one scenario a woman gets regularly beaten by her partner, one day she snaps and stabs him with kitchen knife and kills him, would you hang her?

most killings are spur of the moment acts they don't think of the punishment at the time so its not really a deterent

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oournsMan over a year ago

" I think he's implying you're somewhat of a troll. I think the jury's out on that one.I'm always intrigued when people start this kind of thread and don't seem to contribute much though.

Who's made a direct personal attack?

" implying (on someone elses behalf) you're are somewhat of a troll" was my first clue...

Meanwhile... Back to the OPs thread...

I'm sure you think selective quoting is really clever.

The whole quote is

"I think he's implying you're somewhat of a troll. I think the jury's out on that one."

Did you not read the bit about the just being out on that one? Or are you just indulging yourself in personal attacks?

Happy New Year...#jurymaybe not trolling but ignorant of the facts behind her contentions. Which if you care enough about an issue to start a thread, then maybe do a little research before.

This isn't a University. The O.P. is not giving a lecture.

If anything she is philosophising by raising questions.

She never purported to have the answers.

She can learn what others think and form opinons from there when 'non pompous' posters post without moralising, judging and controlling. "
she has no interest in learning. Its a deterent, its not, i dont care. Its a better option, why, because.

If thats the reasoning behind discussing an issue like the death penalty, then yes, moralising and judging is to be expected.

Why are we so afraid of education and knowledge, "she didnt come here for a university lecture", and herald the idiotic fallacy that everyones opinion is valid.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

"i an against

one scenario a woman gets regularly beaten by her partner, one day she snaps and stabs him with kitchen knife and kills him, would you hang her?

most killings are spur of the moment acts they don't think of the punishment at the time so its not really a deterent

If it was in self defence then NO. It's always been the case.

If not in self defence then YES

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *emima_puddlefuckCouple over a year ago

hexham

No, if killing is wrong, it is wrong, whether by state or individual.Anything else is moral equivocation of the worst sort.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *waymanMan over a year ago

newcastle

" I think he's implying you're somewhat of a troll. I think the jury's out on that one.I'm always intrigued when people start this kind of thread and don't seem to contribute much though.

Who's made a direct personal attack?

" implying (on someone elses behalf) you're are somewhat of a troll" was my first clue...

Meanwhile... Back to the OPs thread...

I'm sure you think selective quoting is really clever.

The whole quote is

"I think he's implying you're somewhat of a troll. I think the jury's out on that one."

Did you not read the bit about the just being out on that one? Or are you just indulging yourself in personal attacks?

Happy New Year...#jurymaybe not trolling but ignorant of the facts behind her contentions. Which if you care enough about an issue to start a thread, then maybe do a little research before.

This isn't a University. The O.P. is not giving a lecture.

If anything she is philosophising by raising questions.

She never purported to have the answers.

She can learn what others think and form opinons from there when 'non pompous' posters post without moralising, judging and controlling. "

"Moralising judging and controlling?"

How do you respond to a post without judging it?

How do you comment on a moral issue like capital punishment without moralising?

Controlling? Who's being controlled? I haven't said the OP shouldn't have posted. I did wonder why she bothered, because we've all seen how these threads go. there's usually lots of heat, not much light, and someone starts bleating about other people judging, or moralising, or some other presumed offence.

The definition of madness is doing the same thing and expecting different results. These threads always end up in disarray as the different debating styles and degrees of knowledge or conviction clash. So why did the OP bother?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *waymanMan over a year ago

newcastle

"i an against

one scenario a woman gets regularly beaten by her partner, one day she snaps and stabs him with kitchen knife and kills him, would you hang her?

most killings are spur of the moment acts they don't think of the punishment at the time so its not really a deterent

If it was in self defence then NO. It's always been the case.

If not in self defence then YES"

It hasn't always been the case that if you kill in self defence it's an absolute defence. There are plenty of cases that resolve around reasonableness. A certain low life criminal called Tony Martin featured in one of them...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *waymanMan over a year ago

newcastle

"i an against

one scenario a woman gets regularly beaten by her partner, one day she snaps and stabs him with kitchen knife and kills him, would you hang her?

most killings are spur of the moment acts they don't think of the punishment at the time so its not really a deterent

If it was in self defence then NO. It's always been the case.

If not in self defence then YES

#revolve

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Tony Martin was/is a farmer who had been repeatedly burgled over a period of time and finally decided he'd had enough and acted to save his property. His only 'crime' was he didn't report the incident immediately thus exonnerating himself from the act, and went instead to a friend's house nearby for four hours. Had he informed the police of what had happened he would have been treated a lot more leniently.

Perversely, the govt have now brought in laws that allow someone to use lethal force against intruders in their own homes.

Tony Martin was/is not a low life criminal.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

hands up if u shit dictionaries

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *waymanMan over a year ago

newcastle

Perversely, the govt have now brought in laws that allow someone to use lethal force against intruders in their own homes.

Tony Martin was/is not a low life criminal. "

"Martin used a firearm which he knew he was not entitled to have in a manner which was wholly unjustified. There can be no excuse for this, though we treat his responsibility as being reduced."

Lord Woolf, the lord chief justice

So what do you call a man who illegally possesses weapons?

" In 1994 he had caught a man apparently stealing apples from his orchard and as the culprit drove away Mr Martin fired at the rear of his vehicle. As a result his shotgun certificate was revoked. At some time between then and the incident of 20 August 1999 the appellant came into possession of the Winchester repeater which he said had been left with him as an unsolicited gift by an anonymous donor. He had no licence for it."

Also Woolf CJ, in the report of the hearing of Martin's appeal.

"He was heard to express the view repeatedly that self-help was the better way of dealing with criminals. He is said to have used such remarks as "you know the best way to stop them -- shoot the bastards"; that if a particular team of burglars returned he would "blow their heads off"; and he was also said to have suggested that he would recommend putting such criminals in a field and using a machine gun on them."

ibid;

" Mr Martin was asserting that he had fired all shots from the stairs and had never descended to the ground floor at all. The expert evidence was at one in concluding that that account was untrue. If counsel, in presenting his client's case had emulated Mr Martin in sticking doggedly to that account, there was the high probability that the jury would not accept that Mr Martin had fired the first shot from the stairs in self-defence, since after doing so he would have had to climb over the gap at the bottom of the stairs, moved into the breakfast room, reloaded and fired twice more. Such a scenario, with its implication of pursuit of the burglars, would have been destructive of the defence of self-defence, and highly suggestive that Mr Martin was bent on revenge. Accordingly, it seems to us, counsel was entirely justified in seeking to gloss over the difficulties caused by his client's own evidence and to accept, as the prosecution were prepared to do, that the indications were that all three shots had been fired from the ground floor. " ibid.

Tony Martin lied throughout the case about where he was when he fired at the burglars. That's what low lifes do to defend themselves. he was and is a criminal, who deserved a lengthier sentence than he got by claiming to be mentally ill.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *obletonMan over a year ago

A Home Among The Woodland Creatures

Only the most oppressive and backward regimes have a situation where the state holds the power of life and death over the individual.

Regardless of the certainty of the conviction or the amount of evidence against an accused person, this is one power that I could never condone being handed over to government.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *abioMan over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

"Should castrate pedophiles and child killers though."

child killers... always an emotive issue... so you would have "casrated" the killers of Carl Bridgewater....too right! murdering a 13 yr old paperboy....

oops..... but they didn't, they had their convictions overturned after 18 years

so would you have "castrated" the killer of Lesley Molseed.. a frail 11 yr old girl... too right!!!

oops... but they didn't, he had his conviction overturned after 16 years, and the judge called it "one of the worst miscarriages of justice of all time"

so again i ask the question that the people on the "yes" side of the arguement never want to answer...

"what do you say to the families of the people you executed by mistake?"

ooops??? sorry!!!! my bad!!!!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Id bring it back, if people had something to fear perhaps they would think twice before doing something.

If bringing back capital punishment is urged, then it cannot be on the grounds that it would act as a deterrent. Research has made it abundantly clear that the prospect of being executed does not deter people from murdering other people, because they do not believe that they will get caught. And if it did deter them then America wouldn't have one of the highest murder rates in the world.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *am sampsonMan over a year ago

cwmbran

It was banned in the first place because of public outcry over the number of innocent people being hung, despite all the modern technology there will still be mistakes and corruption- easiest yhing in the world to plant or cross contaminate DNA. As a sidenote an old colleague of mine (former policeman) was at the hanging of Ruth Ellis

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Only for people who hide there profiles

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

So take the extreme killings the people who wipe out families and mass murderers. Instead of rotting in jail and wasting tax payers money. They deserve to die its not about a life for a life it is about justice. Capital punishment did all those tyrants deserve to be killed. Hell yes.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Only for people who hide there profiles"

lol thats me dead.. was nice knowing you all

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

" Capital punishment did all those tyrants deserve to be killed. Hell yes."

Which tyrants? are we talking about the recent ones? Bin Laden? Gaddafi? you know,the ones that weren't given the luxury of a trial,fair or otherwise.

That's not justice,that's retribution

And when someone tries to expose wrongdoing they end up on a charge too.

I doubt whether Bradley Manning will get a fair trial either

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I am against it for most reasons already posted. Also where do you draw the line on who gets the death penalty? The battered wife who kills her husband in his sleep or the person who kills a child, same crime, different circumstances. I once read a book by John Grisham called The Chamber. I know it's fiction, but it gives you the insight of life on death row and it's horrendous. I believe life behind bars should mean whole of life, but nobody has the right to take anybody's life.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ara_and_MJCouple over a year ago

rochdale

Also, in the US it has been found that executing a 20-yr old male would cost over $5 million, incarcerating him for the rest of his natural life somewhere in the region of $2.5 million dollars, once all appeals were factored in.

Execution is not about justice, it's about revenge and revenge should NEVER be a part of the Judicial Process.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

why would it cost double the amount of money to execute a person than to have them in prison til they died?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I'd get a far greater sense of satisfaction if a murderer in say 40 years time, asked to be released saying what a changed person he was and the Home Secretary said, "Sorry, but your victim is still dead, no can do.""

I totally love this post... it makes far more sense than some of the posts on this thread

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"why would it cost double the amount of money to execute a person than to have them in prison til they died?

That's what I wondered.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

And yes I know they are high profile cases but the Likes of Myra Hindley when she killed all those children and the parents never found out where the grave was. And Fred West and even Bronson he was more of a criminal in prison than he was out of it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"why would it cost double the amount of money to execute a person than to have them in prison til they died?

In the states there is an automatic appeal with death sentences.they cost a lot of money.further appeals cost even more.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

No.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

ok just read some stuff on Amnesty Internationals website and its to do with more trials basically just to make sure they are right with their choice to execute.. if they were going to lock someone up for life surely the same indepth trials should take place also.

death sentence or no death sentence i think the indepth trials should be the same.. or you could be locking up and innocent man/woman if the system wasnt thorough enough

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

child abusers and murderers can rot in hell far as am concerned. prisons too good for them

get them out doing manual labour 12 hours a day wearing shackles until they be dead

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

" or you could be locking up and innocent man/woman if the system wasnt thorough enough"

or executing them?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

" or you could be locking up and innocent man/woman if the system wasnt thorough enough

or executing them?"

yup or executing them.

Its me being naive again, but id hope a trial was going to be blooming thorough if someone was going to be locked up for life.. and not just saving the best super duper checked trials just for those on death row.. surely every one should be entitled to the same??

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *waymanMan over a year ago

newcastle

"ok just read some stuff on Amnesty Internationals website and its to do with more trials basically just to make sure they are right with their choice to execute.. if they were going to lock someone up for life surely the same indepth trials should take place also.

death sentence or no death sentence i think the indepth trials should be the same.. or you could be locking up and innocent man/woman if the system wasnt thorough enough"

In many states of the US where they have the death penalty they in effect have two trials - on to decide guilt, one to decide sentence.

Each verdict can be appealed, all the way to the Supreme Court.

New evidence means new appeals.

Prisoners getting capital sentences are more likely to be poor, black and badly represented. That means appeals on the basis of a badly conducted defence, or on the basis of bias.

The figure of $5M sounds easily accurate.

Anyone want to calculate how much Tony Martin's appeal cost us all so he could claim he wasn't really a murderer, just a killer with a psychiatric problem? A rough estimate is around half a million pounds.....

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

death sentence or no death sentence i think the indepth trials should be the same.. or you could be locking up and innocent man/woman if the system wasnt thorough enough

In many states of the US where they have the death penalty they in effect have two trials - on to decide guilt, one to decide sentence.

Each verdict can be appealed, all the way to the Supreme Court.

New evidence means new appeals.

Prisoners getting capital sentences are more likely to be poor, black and badly represented. That means appeals on the basis of a badly conducted defence, or on the basis of bias.

The figure of $5M sounds easily accurate.

what would u do if confronted by burglars or a theif in the night? ask them to leave nicely

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

NO and if will never happen

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ara_and_MJCouple over a year ago

rochdale

"why would it cost double the amount of money to execute a person than to have them in prison til they died?

The overwhelming majority of murderers in the US are poor, therefore the cost of all the appeals is borne by the state. Factor in the rising costs of appeals all the way up to Federal Court and the costs start to rocket.

Take a look at how long between sentencing and execution of Capital cases in the US and see how many appeals each prisoner has.

The legal system in both the US and UK are hideously expensive, imprisoning for life is very often the far cheaper option.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

My opinion on capital punishment is if it is brought back a member of the public should be chosen at random to do it at each execution. Its absurd in this day and age.

I do however think prisoners are there to be punished, but it should be more as source of cheap labour. Why not get these people sorting and cleaning rubbish for recycling, that could save the public purse a bit of money.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *waymanMan over a year ago

newcastle

death sentence or no death sentence i think the indepth trials should be the same.. or you could be locking up and innocent man/woman if the system wasnt thorough enough

In many states of the US where they have the death penalty they in effect have two trials - on to decide guilt, one to decide sentence.

Each verdict can be appealed, all the way to the Supreme Court.

New evidence means new appeals.

Prisoners getting capital sentences are more likely to be poor, black and badly represented. That means appeals on the basis of a badly conducted defence, or on the basis of bias.

The figure of $5M sounds easily accurate.

what would u do if confronted by burglars or a theif in the night? ask them to leave nicely

Since I'm not the kind of criminal who illegally owns shotguns or lies about where he was standing when he shot people in the back as they ran away I can safely say I'll never end up in the same situation as Tony Martin.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"My opinion on capital punishment is if it is brought back a member of the public should be chosen at random to do it at each execution. Its absurd in this day and age.

Sorry can you expand on that? I'm confused what you mean.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

If the criminal hadnt been robbing Mr Martin does it not stand to common sence that he would still be alive??

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Since I'm not the kind of criminal who illegally owns shotguns or lies about where he was standing when he shot people in the back as they ran away I can safely say I'll never end up in the same situation as Tony Martin."

Ah, that explains why Martin's sentence was reduced from life for murder to five and three for manslaughter, and and then freed after 3 years for good behaviour. Jolly good British justice and all that, tip pip and gadzooks milarky.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"My opinion on capital punishment is if it is brought back a member of the public should be chosen at random to do it at each execution. Its absurd in this day and age.

Sorry can you expand on that? I'm confused what you mean."

Well basically if you think its a good idea, you do it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *atisfy janeWoman over a year ago

Torquay

Far too many miscarriages of justice within our recent legal history to ever consider bringing it back.....

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *waymanMan over a year ago

newcastle

If the criminal hadnt been robbing Mr Martin does it not stand to common sence that he would still be alive??"

if you don't know the difference between burglary and robbery you may be out of your depth in this debate.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *waymanMan over a year ago

newcastle

His sentence was reduced because he introduced evidence that he suffered from a paranoid personality disorder, and could therefore plead diminished responsibility, which reduced the charge from murder to manslaughter since dim rep negates the mens rea required for murder. In short he got off because his defence claimed he was a loony. Wonder how they reached that conclusion?

His sentence for illegally possessing the shotgun was not reduced. I recommend reading the full judgement - you can find it at Bailii if you know how. The citation is [2001] EWCA Crim 2245

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

His sentence for illegally possessing the shotgun was not reduced. I recommend reading the full judgement - you can find it at Bailii if you know how. The citation is [2001] EWCA Crim 2245"

i dont own guns legally or illegally but confronted by an intruder i`d be grabbin the nearest object to batter them. if they died in the process i`d feel it justifiable force

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *waymanMan over a year ago

newcastle

His sentence for illegally possessing the shotgun was not reduced. I recommend reading the full judgement - you can find it at Bailii if you know how. The citation is [2001] EWCA Crim 2245

i dont own guns legally or illegally but confronted by an intruder i`d be grabbin the nearest object to batter them. if they died in the process i`d feel it justifiable force"

And you'd have a better defence than Tony Martin. Especially if, unlike him, you didn't lie about what happened.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *phroditeWoman over a year ago

(She/ her) in Sensualityland

"No. The premeditated taking of a life by the state is just as wrong as the taking of a life by an individual.

To those who say if we get it wrong every now then it's a small price to pay, would you still say that if it was one of your family ?"

+ 1

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

His sentence for illegally possessing the shotgun was not reduced. I recommend reading the full judgement - you can find it at Bailii if you know how. The citation is [2001] EWCA Crim 2245"

I have read that the guiy that Martin shot was of pretty limted intelligence, to the level of learning difficulties. The people that took him out that night did so more for their own entertainment rather than him being a criminal mastermind. When this guy was killed where were the others?

It's true he'd still be alive if he hadn't been there. But the fact that if Tony Martin hadn't shot him in the back with an illegal gun he'd also still be alive.

So as those that are pro the death sentence also seem to be pro Tony Martin - why, should he be excused. Is oit because you feel tht his crime was in some way justified? Is that not a slippery slope?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *emima_puddlefuckCouple over a year ago

hexham

His sentence for illegally possessing the shotgun was not reduced. I recommend reading the full judgement - you can find it at Bailii if you know how. The citation is [2001] EWCA Crim 2245

It's true he'd still be alive if he hadn't been there. But the fact that if Tony Martin hadn't shot him in the back with an illegal gun he'd also still be alive.

So as those that are pro the death sentence also seem to be pro Tony Martin - why, should he be excused. Is oit because you feel tht his crime was in some way justified? Is that not a slippery slope?"

my point exactly...Tony Martin killed someone...where do we draw the lines,either killing is wrong,or it isnt

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"my point exactly...Tony Martin killed someone...where do we draw the lines,either killing is wrong,or it isnt"

If someone threatens to kill any member of my family they'd better be prepared meet their maker to achieve it. I'd have no compunction in sending them to their grave if it meant my loved one would survive. The law can do with me what it will afterwards.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"my point exactly...Tony Martin killed someone...where do we draw the lines,either killing is wrong,or it isnt

and i think most people would feel the same, if anyone killed one of my loved ones i'd have no problem sticking a knife thro their heart, but taking revenge on a loved one towards someone who has hurt you personally is not the same and sitting there in a jury and playing god with someone elses life who has done me no harm personally, in that situation i couldnt sentance someone to death

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eakcoupleCouple over a year ago

peak district

Yes, we were conned. When the 'bleeding heart' liberal bunch did away with hanging we were told life imprisonment would mean life. It now means about 10 years in clink. Life is cheap for these willocky politicians, apart from murderers' lives of course.

The EU demands we don't hang murderers any more. We need to get out of Europe, have a referendum on hanging and string up all first degree murderers, including those in prison doing life at the moment.

But it will never happen because Cameron is a wimp!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *atisfy janeWoman over a year ago

Torquay

[Removed by poster at 02/01/12 00:16:49]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

No. Our society has evolved past capital punishment.

Costs and revenge seem to be at the root of any argument for bringing it back. Neither justifies State Murder in my opinion.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *obletonMan over a year ago

A Home Among The Woodland Creatures

"If the criminal hadnt been robbing Mr Martin does it not stand to common sence that he would still be alive??"

correct - however there is no need for you to defend yourself from someone running away from you.

The fact that they might have nicked your telly is irrelevant in that respect - there's a difference between a threat to your posessions and a threat to your person

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *atisfy janeWoman over a year ago

Torquay

First of all when the death penalty was abolished in Great Britain in 1969 there was never a promise of 'life means life'.....

Nor was the abolition anything to do with the EU, it was a decision taken by Parliament.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)