Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

bedlam breakout

the death penalty

437 posts in this topic

Yet if a guy rings for two policewomen, shoot them in cold blood *his* right to life is sacrosanct? What about our right to not have such #### in our towns znd cities?

In what universe or plane is that just?

if I had done that I would readily accept that I had to face the big anaesthetic , I wouldn't protest at all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have capital punishment in the USA. It doesn't work, and can only be justified if you believe that pure vengeance equates to justice.

Anyway, I may be wrong but isn't it incompatible with EU membership?

Why is it necessarily about pure vengeance? How about, don't kill people in cold blood but if you do, expect to possibly forego your right to live.

Sounds fair

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im afraid these liberal views are making your society a lot less "civilised" than it should be, a percentage of society are no better than animals.

worked in the penal system for 15 years with some of the most dangerous disturbed young criminals inn the country

wrote the biography of a former gangster who now works with the police oninitiatives  preventing youngsters getting into trouble. He related to me in graphic detail and I wrote about them

 

I aint no liberal when it comes to dealing with dangerous criminals. I've seen the inside of many prisons of various categories

On an emotional level I ould like to see someof the creatures you are talking about ripped apart limb from limb. On a rational level Ithink just the opposite. Decent people need protecting from dangerous people and that's the fundamental thing that prison does, and that's incidentally why there are people in prison who shouldnt be. I'm an animal lover and the comparison between these people ad animals is at best lazy.

I think the opposite for all the reasons that have been discussed over and over since forever, hence my original response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever the fevered imaginations of right-wing journalists say, prison is not an easy option. Yes there are "privileges" but they have to be earned by good and co-operative behaviour and may be rescinded at any time.

 

The vast majority of murders take place in the heat of the moment within the victims family or peer group, the french even have a defence based on "crime passionel"

There is no reliable evidence to prove that the death penalty acts as a deterrent, the example of the USA has already been quoted and the number of people who would have been executed over the last few years who were subsequently found not guilty is enough surely to put a doubt in the head of the fiercest proponent of hanging, Timothy Evans, the Birmingham 6, the Guildford 4, Stefan Kiszko enough to be going on with?

 

Edited changed victors to victims*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever the fevered imaginations of right-wing journalists say, prison is not an easy option. Yes there are "privileges" but they have to be earned by good and co-operative behaviour and may be rescinded at any time.

 

The vast majority of murders take place in the heat of the moment within the victors family or peer group, the french even have a defence based on "crime passionel"

There is no reliable evidence to prove that the death penalty acts as a deterrent, the example of the USA has already been quoted and the number of people who would have been executed over the last few years who were subsequently found not guilty is enough surely to put a doubt in the head of the fiercest proponent of hanging, Timothy Evans, the Birmingham 6, the Guildford 4, Stefan Kiszko enough to be going on with?

I agree with what youre saying Phil

but I dont think crime passionel exists any more in France

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not everyone convicted of murder was executed. So who is to say that the G4 etc egc would have been executed?

I remain to he convinced that keeping certain killers alive serves any purpose whatsoever.

Nb we are not talking about the wider penal system here but specifically killers like Cregan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the british government give the order to kill everyday its called the army

 

I think the RAF and RN wouldn't be happy being ignored from that list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 We need protection from such ####

 

Keeping them locked up for life protects just as effectively as killing them, with the added bonus of being able to release them if you get the wrong person.

Killing or locking up or any other punishement doesn't protect us unless you're advocating killing them before any crime has been committed. If the death penalty existed then Cregan's victims would be just as dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah Shadow, the victims are dead so that's that. Just as long as we feel superior about it. It may also tell any future Cregans 'do it. .but at your peril'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not everyone convicted of murder was executed. So who is to say that the G4 etc egc would have been executed?

 

I seem to remember that the judge said that if he could, he would have passed the death sentence, if it wasn't the G4 then it was the B6.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to remember that the judge said that if he could, he would have passed the death sentence, if it wasn't the G4 then it was the B6.

I don't necessarily agree with the death sentence. But I think it could possibly be an option in certain circumstances.

I also don't think it is fair to guarantee that people can kill and regardless of their actions their life is held sacred, I really don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm firmly in the no camp.

 

  1. It's non reversible, so mistakes can't be rectified.
  2. It doesn't work as a deterrent, you only need to look at countries where they still have the death penalty, and guess what? Murders still get committed.
  3. If you agree that murder is wrong, how can you argue that the state murdering someone is right?
  4. It's too easy an option for the perpetrators of the crime; a couple of days/weeks/months awaiting the dreaded moment (and that moment being painless and relatively dignified) against a whole lifetime knowing they will never know freedom again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on Griff, how many murderers stay in prison for life?

And why is it murder if someone like cregan is taken out? To me it would be a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever the fevered imaginations of right-wing journalists say, prison is not an easy option. Yes there are "privileges" but they have to be earned by good and co-operative behaviour and may be rescinded at any time.

 

The vast majority of murders take place in the heat of the moment within the victors family or peer group, the french even have a defence based on "crime passionel"

There is no reliable evidence to prove that the death penalty acts as a deterrent, the example of the USA has already been quoted and the number of people who would have been executed over the last few years who were subsequently found not guilty is enough surely to put a doubt in the head of the fiercest proponent of hanging, Timothy Evans, the Birmingham 6, the Guildford 4, Stefan Kiszko enough to be going on with?

 

Fully agree with the rest of your post, Phil, but there are two points regarding the first paragraph.

 

I am sure that, for most of us, prison would not be an easy option, but it is clearly not so hard as to put some criminals off crime. Furthermore, public perception is an important issue and does need to be addressed in some way. If the public perception is wrong, then 'we' have to find a way to correct that perception.

 

Secondly, the issue of reward for good behaviour. I don't think it is as simple as that. In a recent TV programme about Aylesbury YOI (?), a prison officer justified the privileges not as a reward for good behaviour, but more as a bribe to keep the prisoners 'on-side'. He said something along the lines of 'If we didn't give them recreation facilities and TVs, they would be unmanageable and the prison officers' job would be impossible.' So, not simply a reward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on Griff, how many murderers stay in prison for life?

And why is it murder if someone like cregan is taken out? To me it would be a good idea.

Cregan: the guy who killed his fellow gangsters and the police officers will

 

people who are given a life sentence don't ncssarily serve their entire sentence in prison , it varies with the individual: but a life sentence is exactly that. Such prisoners ae on licence fo lifeand can be reimprisoned immediately for he slightest indiscretion or change in circumstances as the authorities see fi andthere are clear strit restrictions on what such prisoners can do and where they can got. You might or migt not agree with this. I'm just passing on the facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To us, prison would be a terrible thing. For most habitual criminals its just a blip and as they say, an occupational hazard.

I know several.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fully agree with the rest of your post, Phil, but there are two points regarding the first paragraph.

 

I am sure that, for most of us, prison would not be an easy option, but it is clearly not so hard as to put some criminals off crime. Furthermore, public perception is an important issue and does need to be addressed in some way. If the public perception is wrong, then 'we' have to find a way to correct that perception.

 

Secondly, the issue of reward for good behaviour. I don't think it is as simple as that. In a recent TV programme about Aylesbury YOI (?), a prison officer justified the privileges not as a reward for good behaviour, but more as a bribe to keep the prisoners 'on-side'. He said something along the lines of 'If we didn't give them recreation facilities and TVs, they would be unmanageable and the prison officers' job would be impossible.' So, not simply a reward.

then the prison officer expressed himself badly

 

but there is a point to what he says: having such a structure is a manangement technique in a difficult working environment for those dealing with these people, and the 'bribe' can be taken away when circumstances ie the pisoners' conduct warrants it.

Out of interest, what do you think that a privilege system is supposed to do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To us, prison would be a terrible thing. For most habitual criminals its just a blip and as they say, an occupational hazard.

I know several.

I know many

if prison is an occupational hazard for thedse people then you have to ask qhy it word be only slightly less worthwhile to life on the out.

Prison is also a dumping ground for the menbtally ill and the sociallyindequate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know many

if prison is an occupational hazard for thedse people then you have to ask qhy it word be only slightly less worthwhile to life on the out.

Prison is also a dumping ground for the menbtally ill and the sociallyindequate.

I agree the prison system has many problems. But to many, a hellhole it isnt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree the prison system has many problems. But to many, a hellhole it isnt.

it isn't supposed to be a hellhole

 

people return to prison for a variety of reasons one of them being that life in prison as you imply is only slightly worse than lif outside. This poses the question about what value these people place on life outside, although most criminals commit crime thinking they wont get caught. 

If you think that worsening prison conditionswill prevent people from reoffending you might be in for a shock: also you would be making he job of the people who work in the system so much worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

then the prison officer expressed himself badly

 

but there is a point to what he says: having such a structure is a manangement technique in a difficult working environment for those dealing with these people, and the 'bribe' can be taken away when circumstances ie the pisoners' conduct warrants it.

Out of interest, what do you think that a privilege system is supposed to do?

 

That was a single quote from two hours of programme and probably, as I said, not an accurate one. However, as you go on to accept, he made his point, so he didn't express himself too badly.

 

As for the rest of your post, I think you are picking up on my use of 'bribe'. If we start playing semantics, we'll be here all day. I was making the point that if the 'reward' precedes the action, it is more of a bribe; whereas, if it follows the action, it is more of a reward. It's more complicated, because the promise of a later reward for a given action is also seen as a bribe, even though the reward follows the action.

 

Within the prison system, where there are violent inmates, I'd pretty much go along with whatever the guys at the coal face deem appropriate or necessary to maintain a degree of order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know many

if prison is an occupational hazard for thedse people then you have to ask qhy it word be only slightly less worthwhile to life on the out.

Prison is also a dumping ground for the menbtally ill and the sociallyindequate.

 

Nice sidestep, l'ang! The thread was about the death penalty and, specifically, Cregan. It morphed slightly to include a discussion of life sentences and their implications. It was never about society's treatment of the mentally ill or socially inadequate. That is a totally different issue. Those people deserve help, not dumping in a potentially dangerous situation like prison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it isn't supposed to be a hellhole

people return to prison for a variety of reasons one of them being that life in prison as you imply is only slightly worse than lif outside. This poses the question about what value these people place on life outside, although most criminals commit crime thinking they wont get caught.

If you think that worsening prison conditionswill prevent people from reoffending you might be in for a shock: also you would be making he job of the people who work in the system so much worse.

So why are re offending rates so high today then? Clearly they aren't scared of going back.

Part of the problem is that so many prisoners 'know their rights' thus making it extremely difficult for prison staff to do their jobs for fear of not following the letter of the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was a single quote from two hours of programme and probably, as I said, not an accurate one. However, as you go on to accept, he made his point, so he didn't express himself too badly.

 

As for the rest of your post, I think you are picking up on my use of 'bribe'. If we start playing semantics, we'll be here all day. I was making the point that if the 'reward' precedes the action, it is more of a bribe; whereas, if it follows the action, it is more of a reward. It's more complicated, because the promise of a later reward for a given action is also seen as a bribe, even though the reward follows the action.

 

Within the prison system, where there are violent inmates, I'd pretty much go along with whatever the guys at the coal face deem appropriate or necessary to maintain a degree of order.

 

 

That was a single quote from two hours of programme and probably, as I said, not an accurate one. However, as you go on to accept, he made his point, so he didn't express himself too badly.

 

As for the rest of your post, I think you are picking up on my use of 'bribe'. If we start playing semantics, we'll be here all day. I was making the point that if the 'reward' precedes the action, it is more of a bribe; whereas, if it follows the action, it is more of a reward. It's more complicated, because the promise of a later reward for a given action is also seen as a bribe, even though the reward follows the action.

 

Within the prison system, where there are violent inmates, I'd pretty much go along with whatever the guys at the coal face deem appropriate or necessary to maintain a degree of order.

from experience thereward does not precede the action. That would be unworkable

not playing semantics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have capital punishment in the USA. It doesn't work, and can only be justified if you believe that pure vengeance equates to justice.

 

Anyway, I may be wrong but isn't it incompatible with EU membership?

 

So we get kicked out of the EU if we bring it in? Hang on a sec i am phoning UKIP with a policy idea....

 

:)

 

Ok back to the issue of the thread:

 

Sure bring it back. While were at it why not bring in torture for suspects being investigated for these sort of crimes where there is no doubt in the Police mind as they are going to get the death penalty anyway....

See you start heading down a slippery slope. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 10th April 2017

Rugby League World - April 2017