Archived

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

bedlam breakout

the death penalty

437 posts in this topic

those lessons of the past have been learnt, you can not live in the past- if you did what is the point of all the scientific research and advancement techniques used in forensics? we might just as well get regan and carter on the case and get em banged up according to that argument.

 

But that's exactly what you want to do, by calling for the reintroduction of the death penalty. :dry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

more publicity for them

?

 

I don't see what that has to do with what I said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But that's exactly what you want to do, by calling for the reintroduction of the death penalty. :dry:

Why is it living in the past? Pretty sure we never had the death penalty exclusively for cases like Cregan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Burglary is illegal. It is still rife, maybe we should legalise it to reduce the rates

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But that's exactly what you want to do, by calling for the reintroduction of the death penalty. :dry:

I expect a better than that from a high quality contributer  like you , and I think you know it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it living in the past? Pretty sure we never had the death penalty exclusively for cases like Cregan.

Because, at some point in the future, just as has happened in the past, someone, somewhere in the justice system would make a mistake and an innocent person would die at the hands of the state as a result of the death penalty. I'd prefer to pay the cost of keeping an animal like Cregan and others like him alive in prison, to prevent the possibility of even one innocent person being put to death by the state in error.

I don't think the death penalty reduces crime or cost to the state in any way shape or form, aside from the fact I believe it to be utterly barbaric.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because, at some point in the future, just as has happened in the past, someone, somewhere in the justice system would make a mistake and an innocent person would die at the hands of the state as a result of the death penalty. I'd prefer to pay the cost of keeping an animal like Cregan and others like him alive in prison, to prevent the possibility of even one innocent person being put to death by the state in error.

I don't think the death penalty reduces crime or cost to the state in any way shape or form, aside from the fact I believe it to be utterly barbaric.

what about national service then anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because, at some point in the future, just as has happened in the past, someone, somewhere in the justice system would make a mistake and an innocent person would die at the hands of the state as a result of the death penalty. I'd prefer to pay the cost of keeping an animal like Cregan and others like him alive in prison, to prevent the possibility of even one innocent person being put to death by the state in error.

I don't think the death penalty reduces crime or cost to the state in any way shape or form, aside from the fact I believe it to be utterly barbaric.

barbarism begins at home

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

barbarism begins at home

Yup

I use a babyliss saved me a fortune over the years . One if those circular things grade zero at my time of life

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because, at some point in the future, just as has happened in the past, someone, somewhere in the justice system would make a mistake and an innocent person would die at the hands of the state as a result of the death penalty. I'd prefer to pay the cost of keeping an animal like Cregan and others like him alive in prison, to prevent the possibility of even one innocent person being put to death by the state in error.

I don't think the death penalty reduces crime or cost to the state in any way shape or form, aside from the fact I believe it to be utterly barbaric.

John, innocent people are killed all the time. Is it only murderers (and by that I mean cast iron no quibbles like Cregan) that we ensure are kept safe?

Tonight someone innocent will be killed somewhere by a mugger/knife/premeditated attack. ... is that not more deserving of our horror than someone who has willingly killed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it would be barbaric if we took your approach. in any case, its a sterile position. It's not going to happen. not now, not tomorrow, not ever. Its morally wrong, the probability of an innocent being killed is 1 and it is shown to be no deterrent as I have shown, the likel hood of an INCREASE in homicides if the death penalty was brought back is considerable. if Creggan knew  he would be killed by the state, there would in my view been a very considerable risk that he would have taken even more innocent victims with him.  His life in prison is going to be very very unpleasant for him and he will in my view probably wish he was dead.

 

The United States is one of only four industrialized democracies that still practice capital punishment. From the others, Japan and Singapore have executed prisoners, like the United States, while South Korea currently has a moratorium in effect. In 2011, the USA was the only source of executions (43) in the G8 countries or Western Hemisphere.

 

The death penalty is currently a legal sentence in 32 states

 

see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Europe

 

if the population at large supported the death penalty, then these democratic organisations would not be able to enforce a ban. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John, innocent people are killed all the time. Is it only murderers (and by that I mean cast iron no quibbles like Cregan) that we ensure are kept safe?

Tonight someone innocent will be killed somewhere by a mugger/knife/premeditated attack. ... is that not more deserving of our horror than someone who has willingly killed?

 

Between 1900 and 1949, 621 men and 11 women were executed in England and Wales.  True,  none of them offended again but it certainly  did not stop other murders and we doi not knwo how many mostakes were made.  

 

IN any case, in our system of democracy, Parliament has repeatedly  voted in free votes against  the re-introduction of  capital punishment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John, innocent people are killed all the time. Is it only murderers (and by that I mean cast iron no quibbles like Cregan) that we ensure are kept safe?

Tonight someone innocent will be killed somewhere by a mugger/knife/premeditated attack. ... is that not more deserving of our horror than someone who has willingly killed?

No one is suggesting the victims of crime are not deserving of our sympathy and thoughts but the death penalty will not stop these hideous events, and if the figures that JohnM has posted are accurate then it may actually increase the danger of being murdered, all it will do is ensure that eventually another innocent person will be executed.

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.

 

You may be correct there. But most murderers aren't habitual criminals - old lags who are in and out of prison like a fiddlers elbow. Even Peter Sutcliffe hadn't been inside. had Cregan? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have started a right debate on this in the pub here. Fingers banging on the table. ..The works

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried to keep out of yet another discussion on the death penalty on here, I really did, however lots of 'facts' about how someone was convicted of murder then later released would have meant 'they would have been hung if we still had the death penalty' in bunk.  Less than 10% of convicted murderers were hung, over 90 % of convicted murderers were imprisoned.

 

No, no one would, as murdering children in 1975 was not a capital offence.

 

Between 1900 and 1949, 621 men and 11 women were executed in England and Wales.  True,  none of them offended again but it certainly  did not stop other murders and we doi not knwo how many mostakes were made.  

Between 1900 and 1964 817 people were executed for numerous offences (797 for murder, 16 for espionage and 4 for treason)  To date I believe only three have had their convictions quashed.  Three out of 817 isn't bad odds (three too many though). 

 

When you were convicted of murder, everyone was given the death penalty, they had to, it was the only punishment, but the vast majority were reprieved.  The ones who were executed had their cases go through several processes of investigation by varied departments, after their conviction, to see if there was any chance of a reprieve.  The ones executed were the ones who, if you like, ticked all the guilty boxes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It concerns me when people are so eager to take the life of another. It would be a very sad day indeed if capital punishment is ever brought back into the British penal system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It concerns me when people are so eager to take the life of another. It would be a very sad day indeed if capital punishment is ever brought back into the British penal system.

I cant believe you just posted the question to the answer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this thread will eventually get locked but...

I can't see, whether it's back with the cavemen or not but why should I, in some elongated way pay for, say, Peter Sutcliffe's keep. If everyone is happy with that then surely it is I who has a problem. Mistakes have been made over years but as Bedlam says, the most notorious killers are evidence enough?? What choices did the 13 Sutcliffe killed for example have? He's in Broadmoor having 3 square meals and a bit of xmas barney to boot? Nice. Whrere is that fine line and how do you defend your money paying for his upkeep?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this thread will eventually get locked but...

I can't see, whether it's back with the cavemen or not but why i in some elongated way is paying for, say, Peter Sutcliffe's keep. If everyone is happy with that then surely it is I who has a problem. Mistakes have been made over years but as Bedlam says, the most notorious killers are evidence enough?? What choices did the 13 Sutcliffe killed for example have? He's in Broadmoor having 3 square meals and a bit of xmas barney to boot? Nice. Whrere is that fine line and how do you defend your money paying for his upkeep?

sanity  at last

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, no one would, as murdering children in 1975 was not a capital offence.

Sorry to snip the quote but just a quick reply to say that that was in a direct response to a post saying that child killers should be executed. I have few doubts that if the death penalty existed then that the police would have sought it for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one is suggesting the victims of crime are not deserving of our sympathy and thoughts but the death penalty will not stop these hideous events, and if the figures that JohnM has posted are accurate then it may actually increase the danger of being murdered, all it will do is ensure that eventually another innocent person will be executed.

How do you know that someone like Cregan might not have done what he did if he knew he would be foregoing his own life? I don't but neither do you.

You will never stop people murdering people. But does that mean we say 'Hey, you can kill under any circumstances and we guarantee you will be ok'. How about introducing an element of 'do it but know you may pay the ultimate price'.

There seems to be some confusion here actually. I am not saying 'lets have the death sentence' but more in certain circumstances perhaps have it. Maybe. Perhaps.

But lets not be tied by the argument 'it makes us better than them' to satisfy a few peoples moral stance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

funding the welfare of ####

 

 

Well no actually, most (please note most, not all) of prisoners are ordinairy people who made a bad choice, who are mentally ill, who's lives have gone off the rails for one reason or another. 

 

Look at the disproportianate number of ex-servicement in prison are they "####"?

 

As I previously stated most murderers are related to or in the peer group of their victims. Most murders are commited in highly emotional situations. I know a guy who served 15 years for murder, he lives out the murder and his remorse for it every day of his life, good you say, so he should, he punched a guy in a fight, the guy fell and hit his head on a kerb. It could have happened to any of us who have had fights at any time in our lives. He's an ordinairy guy who now suffers the remorse of his act every day.

 

Should he have been hung? I say no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in the 80,s the company who i was working for appointed a lawyer called Alistair Logan to represent them (Baker and co in Guildford Surrey) Over the next couple of years i got to know him quite well.

Alistair was a young duty solicitor the night the Guildford 4 were charged for the IRA bombing and went on to represent 2 of the 4,anyway the bottom line is i once over dinner asked Alistair was it difficult for him morally to represent people that had committed such a horrendous crime he then went on to tell me that it wasn,t long before he unearthed a terrible miscarriage of justice and that the Guildford 4 would all be out in a few years along with the Birmingham 6 and the McGuires all of whom had been wrongly convicted.

Furthermore i remember once he told me the the government had known for years actually who had committed the crimes and that during the Thatcher years one suspect was even listed in the Dublin phone directory,Thatcher was fully aware as were future PM,s that those in jail were 100% not guilty but saw it as a slight on the jury system if they were let out early.

On this basis i have been 100% against the death penalty as our record of miscarriages of justice is truly shocking.

CM

 

 

Lord Denning said as much in public when one of their appeals failed.  To parphrase him he said that we could not doubt the police evidence because if we did, it would undermine the entire justice system.  With that sort of attitude from senior judges, how can we re introcuce this barbaric practice?

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 24th July 2017

Rugby League World - August 2017