The Death Penalty

[Harvester Of Souls 40]

I don't think the Death Penalty works as a form of punishment.

In essence, all the death penalty is going to do is make potential criminals more careful and perhaps a little more savvy on how to get away with their crime.

It cuts re-offending to zero. Unless voodoo enjoys a renaissance... unlikely. With the state of the criminal justice system in the UK all they have to do to get away with their crimes is turn up in court and shed a few tears...

 

The execution of extreme cases would clear the prisons of habitual reoffenders. It would cut the cost of funding the prison system as we wouldn't have to feed, clothe, etc these animals. The money could be used to rehabilitate and educate those convicts that do want to change their lives without subsidising those that don't...

 

Savvy criminals I can live with. Multi million pound secure units to segregate habitual sex offenders I can't.

 

Personally, I'm more a believer in re-education.  These people apparently have skills that could be put to good use or, more to the point, may actually be capable of learning skills that other people could not stomach doing.

By destroying something, you are removing a potential resource, but more importantly, you are removing the chance for them to turn themselves around and do something 'good'.

Read this earlier post on serial child rapist Sidney Cooke.

 

The only thing this man is capable of learning is new ways to sexually torture young boys. No amount of 'good' this man can do would attone for his crimes against kids. Some one please tell me why he shouldn't be executed.

 

It dosn't matter what scale the good deed is on, whether it is finding a cure for cancer or just helping a little old lady across the road, it's more to do with the fact that we can cure the problem in the long term as opposed to snuffing out isolated incidents in the short term.

Easiest way to cure the problem of serial sexual offenders, who refuse treatment and admit that they'll reoffend is to execute them. It's not about helping old ladies across the road it's about removing the people in society that break into their homes and then brutally rape them.

[BrunoBrimley 86]

The death penalty works fine according to those who are dead from it.

I thought they all declined to comment.

They write to be from the other side.

[Heretic_Zero 0]

The only thing this man is capable of learning is new ways to sexually torture young boys. No amount of 'good' this man can do would attone for his crimes against kids. Some one please tell me why he shouldn't be executed.

 

Easiest way to cure the problem of serial sexual offenders, who refuse treatment and admit that they'll reoffend is to execute them. It's not about helping old ladies across the road it's about removing the people in society that break into their homes and then brutally rape them.

 

I can't remember where it was that I heard this, but apparently it's 95% of sexual offenders within the UK alone actually go out and do it again.

 

I utterly agree when it comes to kids. As much as I fear sounding like a hypocrite for what I have said previously, but when it comes to child orientated sexual offenders, to put them back in to society, assuming the statistic is even vaguely accurate, seems to be a particularly unsavoury idea.

 

However (in order to save a little bit of face ), those that must be 'put down' I figure are the ones that have chosen to be less than Human. To remove someone from society and re-educate them is the whole idea of the penal system, but whether that re-education works is only really proven if that person doesn't go out and commit the crime, or any other crime for that matter, again.

 

Ideally, although I am not so niave to think it is an ideal world, a educational system would assist a person to see the errors of their ways or perhaps by introducing a medical solution will cure them of the chemical imbalances that urge them in to horrific acts.

Perhaps between science and philosophy there is an answer to socially unacceptable behaviour. We just haven't perfected it yet and I can only hope that one day we do.

 

As for Lennon? Nah, a guy that's going to hand in his Knighthood to try and stop a war would appear something of a hypocrite if he then endorsed the death penalty on selfish grounds.

Mind you, the guy fired five or six rounds in to John, but didn't think about saving one for Yoko? That's just messed up.

(I'm going straight to Hell for that one... )

[Magere Hein 1,400]

As I see it, criminal justice is supposed to serve four different purposes:

1. Revenge of the crime
   
2. Protection of society from the criminal
   
3. Deterrence of similar crimes by others
   
4. Rehabilitation of the criminal
   

Obviously, capital punishment serves the first two purposes, although one may argue that death isn't a proportionate revenge for any other crime than murder. Just as obviously, the death penalty fails to serve the fourth purpose. There's no evidence it serves the third.

 

It's difficult to say whether alternative approaches fare better. In my country the severest penalty is life inprisonment and life means life: only a government pardon can release the criminal. I'm not sure such a sentence is proper revenge, but it does protect society from the criminal. There's still no rehabilitation and still no evidence it serves as a deterrent.

 

It seems to me that the costs aren't much of an argument. I've been told that the many appeals and the years a convict spends on death row in the US are just as expensive as lifelong 'normal' imprisonment.

 

There are some other arguments: the issue of miscarriage of justice. It's painful enough that it happens and the fact that there's no redress after an execution forms an argument against the death penalty.

 

My final argument is a moral one, well expressed by JRR Tolkien:

 

Frodo: "[Gollum] deserves death."

Gandalf: "Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement."

 

Oh well. I'm glad my country doesn't do capital punishment.

 

regards,

Hein

[Tempus Fugit 214]

It seems to me that the costs aren't much of an argument. I've been told that the many appeals and the years a convict spends on death row in the US are just as expensive as lifelong 'normal' imprisonment.

You need a system of one appeal only, of course in the USA, a land where the lawyers are in charge, multiple appeals are inevitable. This need not be, one appeal and no more, followed by swift execution.

 

There are some other arguments: the issue of miscarriage of justice. It's painful enough that it happens and the fact that there's no redress after an execution forms an argument against the death penalty.

What about cases of when a murderer has been released and gone on to murder again. There's no redress there either for the victim.

 

My final argument is a moral one, well expressed by JRR Tolkien:

 

Frodo: "[Gollum] deserves death."

Gandalf: "Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement."

One should never be eager to deal out death in judgement, but sometimes it is the best option. All those old Nazi's executed after judgement at Nuremberg, would you rather they had been given life imprisonment?

 

Oh well. I'm glad my country doesn't do capital punishment.

I'm annoyed my country doesn't have a referendum on the issue, let the people decide.

[Harvester Of Souls 40]

I can't remember where it was that I heard this, but apparently it's 95% of sexual offenders within the UK alone actually go out and do it again.

 

I utterly agree when it comes to kids.  As much as I fear sounding like a hypocrite for what I have said previously, but when it comes to child orientated sexual offenders, to put them back in to society, assuming the statistic is even vaguely accurate, seems to be a particularly unsavoury idea. 

I concur, good Sir. A study conducted by the National Institute of Mental Health (America) in 1998 concluded that the typical (if that is even a real description) child sex offender molests and average of 117 children, most of who do not report the offence.

 

Never mind unsavoury. For monsters like Cooke why not execute the dirty b****** and people like him. Look at all the misery it causes. Why risk exposing more people to their kind of special love?

 

However (in order to save a little bit of face  ), those that must be 'put down' I figure are the ones that have chosen to be less than Human.  To remove someone from society and re-educate them is the whole idea of the penal system, but whether that re-education works is only really proven if that person doesn't go out and commit the crime, or any other crime for that matter, again.

I concur again but about when the penal system can not re-educate or rehabilitate? Habitual offenders that laugh at the courts. Remove them and they can't reoffend.

 

Ideally, although I am not so niave to think it is an ideal world, a educational system would assist a person to see the errors of their ways or perhaps by introducing a medical solution will cure them of the chemical imbalances that urge them in to horrific acts.

Perhaps between science and philosophy there is an answer to socially unacceptable behaviour.  We just haven't perfected it yet and I can only hope that one day we do.

If a dog attacks a human it's put down. Why don't we extend the same courtesy to those special b*******, like Cooke, who will offend given the opportunity.

 

As for Lennon?  Nah, a guy that's going to hand in his Knighthood to try and stop a war would appear something of a hypocrite if he then endorsed the death penalty on selfish grounds.

Mind you, the guy fired five or six rounds in to John, but didn't think about saving one for Yoko?  That's just messed up.

(I'm going straight to Hell for that one... )

When a guy can hit Lennon with half a dozen shots and completely miss Yoko Ono it's glaringly obvious that any form of justice has gone.

 

As I see it, criminal justice is supposed to serve four different purposes:

1. Revenge of the crime
    
   
2. Protection of society from the criminal
    
   
3. Deterrence of similar crimes by others
    
   
4. Rehabilitation of the criminal
   

Obviously, capital punishment serves the first two purposes, although one may argue that death isn't a proportionate revenge for any other crime than murder. Just as obviously, the death penalty fails to serve the fourth purpose. There's no evidence it serves the third.

1, Revenge. I disagree with the revenge aspect. To a child that is left the physical and mental scars of such an encounter executing the suspect would be fair punishment in certain circumstances. Re-read Cooke's catalogue of offences.

 

2, Protection. The protection of society isn't just about physical protection. There is financial protection to consider too. We clothe these people. We feed these people. We allow them a better standard of living than many of their victims. Where is the justice there? They're only a risk to their fellow convicts whilst incarcerated but why should a teenage burglar be at risk from a habitual sex offender?

 

3, Deterrence. Absolutely nothing deters the criminal. Especially the UK's revolving door penal system. I've never argued the deterrence factor of capital punishment. There is nothing to argue.

 

4, Rehabilitation. If rehabilitation is possible then I favour it. I'm referring to the cases where it isn't. Where the perpetrator is reoffending at the earliest opportunity. Society wastes time and money on these people that could be better spent on it's law abiding citizens. Health. Education, etc etc.

 

Let's think about the victims and the law abiding for a change.

 

I'm annoyed my country doesn't have a referendum on the issue, let the people decide.

I concur good Sir. We're constantly belittled in our views expect for a brief period every 4 years, or so, when the fate of the country rests on our pens.

 

A referendum would clear up many issues that Britain has. Issues that politicians ignore constantly in favour of lining their pockets.

 

Now a larger problem... voter apathy.

[Guest duke]

my misses lizzy lets get a rope out.

[Guest Death Penalty 4ever]

I'm against the death penalty because it's wrong.Judicial murder is no different to any other kind.

Yes it is, it's legal.

Death Penalty shall live forever!!!!

Long Live Death Penalty!!!

[Tuber Mirum 125]

The death penalty isn't cheaper than lifelong imprisonment, it isn't morally justifiable and it isn't necessary.

 

The only purpose it serves is to show us how utterly evil those people are whom we have chosen to be setting us an example.

 

Worst thing is, if Arnie and Bush ever did get locked up like they deserve, they would be living like Lord Archer in some purpose-built luxury bunker.

Stick 'em in Aboo Gray-hab I say.

 

Bloody bush. he said "new-kyoo-lur" again yesterday.

[Harvester Of Souls 40]

The death penalty isn't cheaper than lifelong imprisonment, it isn't morally justifiable and it isn't necessary.

It is, it is in extreme cases and it is in extreme cases.

[Tuber Mirum 125]

No it isn't.

[Harvester Of Souls 40]

No it isn't.

Okay then maybe you can offer a decent reason why serial child rapist Sidney Cooke shouldn't be executed?

 

Or how about Alan Webster and Tanya French?

 

I keep saying that it's not something that should be applied in anything other than extreme circumstances... like those listed above but can anyone explain why we should keep them alive?

 

Why should the British taxpayer feed, clothe and shelter them when all they will do is loaf around in prison playing pool and watching satellite television? Plus the extra money to keep them segregated from other prisoners. I'm really wondering how anyone can defend the incarceration of these people.

 

Short drop and a sudden stop. Hang the f****rs

[Anubis the Jackal 77]

They are not executed, as if our moral and legal values say that it is wrong to kill, then this should apply to the state as well as to the individual. End of story.

[Harvester Of Souls 40]

They are not executed, as if our moral and legal values say that it is wrong to kill, then this should apply to the state as well as to the individual. End of story.

I don't accept that explanation at all. I accept that we no longer execute people in this country as part of the EU membership but if our legal and moral values say it's wrong to kill then why are we slaughtering thousands of Iraqi civilians for oil? That's perfectly fine yet we won't allow the execution of a man who repeatedly raped a 12 week old baby girl while his girlfriend took pictures of it. Where is the morality in that? She could be out on licence in 2 years so there isn't even any justice.

 

Anyone fancy having a go at why these people shouldn't be executed based on their individual catalogue of crimes? Why should they be kept alive? Can they be rehabilitated? Will they reoffend given the chance? If not why should they take up the space?

[Tuber Mirum 125]

HOS you are simply saying that since we are bad, why shouldn`t we be worse already?

 

And I`m not murdering anyone in Iraq for oil.

 

Wouldn`t you sooner pay an extra sixpence in taxes not to have to have taken part in a murder?

Not that it would be that much, given the length and expense of the appeals system in the US.

 

Lock `em up with no access to a pool table. And the same for the "elected" politicians who murder people in Iraq for oil.

[Tempus Fugit 214]

Lock `em up with no access to a pool table. And the same for the "elected" politicians who murder people in Iraq for oil.

Wouldn't a lifetime in prison, living under harsh conditions, with no possibility of parole, be far crueller than a quick execution?

 

Have you no mercy?

[Tuber Mirum 125]

Lock `em up with no access to a pool table. And the same for the "elected" politicians who murder people in Iraq for oil.

Wouldn't a lifetime in prison, living under harsh conditions, with no possibility of parole, be far crueller than a quick execution?

 

Have you no mercy?

That would be for the offender to judge, I suppose.

A Re-Education Programme might serve to break the monotony of pondering their wrongdoings.

It needn`t involve electric shocks.

 

Shouldn`t that be "Lashings of Ginger Pop?

[Banshees Scream 110]

Lock `em up with no access to a pool table. And the same for the "elected" politicians who murder people in Iraq for oil.

Wouldn't a lifetime in prison, living under harsh conditions, with no possibility of parole, be far crueller than a quick execution?

 

Have you no mercy?

Yes I think so - People will push the boulder and roll it as far as

they can just to get a convicted killer executed.

 

In my eyes that's not where it's at because your doing half of

what the killer did. Your ending a life and in the end there is

no apropriate purpose for that.

 

Life in prison is the true anwser.

[Tempus Fugit 214]

Shouldn`t that be "Lashings of Ginger Pop?

Definitely beer,

(Five go mad in Dorset)

 

Ginger pop, is so lower middle class don't ya know.

 

Lashings of Ginger pop also sounds like an S&M practice, performed on a red headed father.

[Banshees Scream 110]

Ginger pop, is so lower middle class don't ya know.

Pop music like rap has grown to the top over the years and a great deal of it

I don't like at all.

 

I hope in the future sometime that an era of Rock N Roll will reform and

live once again.

[Guest Toke Deltorso]

They are not executed, as if our moral and legal values say that it is wrong to kill, then this should apply to the state as well as to the individual. End of story.

I don't accept that explanation at all. I accept that we no longer execute people in this country as part of the EU membership but if our legal and moral values say it's wrong to kill then why are we slaughtering thousands of Iraqi civilians for oil? That's perfectly fine yet we won't allow the execution of a man who repeatedly raped a 12 week old baby girl while his girlfriend took pictures of it. Where is the morality in that? She could be out on licence in 2 years so there isn't even any justice.

 

Anyone fancy having a go at why these people shouldn't be executed based on their individual catalogue of crimes? Why should they be kept alive? Can they be rehabilitated? Will they reoffend given the chance? If not why should they take up the space?

The worlds gone mad, if any nonce harmed my grandchild i'd rip his bollocks off,and any do-gooder who stood in the way would get the same.

[Harvester Of Souls 40]

HOS you are simply saying that since we are bad, why shouldn`t we be worse already?

No. I'm saying that there are a special, small, percentage of criminals in Britain are beyond rehabilitation and are a drain on the taxpayer. Scumbags like Cooke, Webster and French... Beyond rehabilitation and a serious risk to society.

 

The state has been slaughtering since it was invented all those thousands of years ago so please don't try and convince me that we're all rosy and moral. Infact put it to the public and we'd see what the unofficial referendum is on serial child rapists.

 

And I`m not murdering anyone in Iraq for oil.

Maybe not you personally but if you're in the UK then your elected government is slaughtering bucket loads of innocents, daily.

 

Wouldn`t you sooner pay an extra sixpence in taxes not to have to have taken part in a murder?

Depends how you're looking at it. If you call killing a serial child rapist murder then there is little I can say to convince you but I call it saving the tax payer and future victims alot of hassle (justice is in there as well somewhere) and I would happily pay more in taxes to kick the kiddy fiddlers stool away as he swings from his prison balcony!

 

Yes I think so - People will push the boulder and roll it as far as

they can just to get a convicted killer executed.

 

In my eyes that's not where it's at because your doing half of

what the killer did. Your ending a life and in the end there is

no apropriate purpose for that.

 

Life in prison is the true anwser.

Maybe we could put them through their various degree courses and get them teaching in primary and high schools across the country... Ruth Kelly seems to think it's a good idea.

[Tuber Mirum 125]

I'm saying that there are a special, small, percentage of criminals in Britain are beyond rehabilitation and are a drain on the taxpayer.

Aha! Sound Financial Reasoning rears its ugly head. Always an argument, though I don't think even Mrs. T used it very often as a justification for murdering people.

 

I would happily pay more in taxes to kick the kiddy fiddlers stool away as he swings from his prison balcony!

Shame on you Mr Souls! The angels will weep for you.

 

[Harvester Of Souls 40]

Aha! Sound Financial Reasoning rears its ugly head. Always an argument, though I don't think even Mrs. T used it very often as a justification for murdering people.

Still waiting for someone to defend the permanent incarceration of a serial child rapist over his execution. A serial paedophile (and convicted murderer for that matter) that refuses all treatment and one that has confessed to reoffending, whilst out on licence.

 

For all the believers in the goodness of humanity what do you do when rehabilitation fails? Keep them locked up at the expense of the taxpayer? I'm one of many that is sick to death of society being lenient on the worst of the worst. A financial argument is

 

Like I said I used be very staunchly anti death penalty until the full catalogue crimes commited Sidney Cooke was revealed to me. Now I'd seriously pay to flick the switch on old sparky. Kick his stool away from the rope. Put the needle in his arm. Pull the trigger etc etc.

 

Think of it as assisted euthanasia instead of murder, after all both are only a legal definition.

 

Shame on you Mr Souls! The angels will weep for you.

Angels don't exist... bit like justice

[Tuber Mirum 125]

Still waiting for someone to defend the permanent incarceration of a serial child rapist over his execution. A serial paedophile (and convicted murderer for that matter) that refuses all treatment and one that has confessed to reoffending, whilst out on licence.

I shall try one more time, then someone else can have a go.

 

1: You can't ever justify murdering someone with economic arguments.

 

2. Someone won't reoffend whilst out on parole if they aren't released. I's a completely different problem that people are often released when they shouldn't be, and in absolutely no way an argument for the death penalty.

 

Admit it, you just fancy the thought of being allowed to kill people.

 

Basta.