January 17, 2014 at 5:37 pm
Blame Tony T for this Post. 😀
In G.D. Tony made the above Post remark somewhere!!
I have entered the search engine of KEY, but cannot find any answer to my question, so here goes.
In this day of modern Forensic Science, D.N.A. etc. Should Hanging be brought back, for Murder and the likes?.Where evidence is conclusive, quote, “Beyond a reasonable doubt” Unquote.
Jim.
Lincoln .7
By: Mr Merry - 21st January 2014 at 20:19
The reason I believe we do not have the right to kill someone is because it is inhumane.
While their actions may be inhumane I do not see why killing the perpetrator makes the sentence just and not just revenge.
I also don’t understand why the family of the victim would want the perpetrator killed for any other reason than revenge.
How can it be just to kill those that have killed?I’ll throw the question back at you. Why do you think the death penalty is anything other than revenge?
Take Sutcliffe for example, if he had killed my mother, call it revenge if you want, I would be more than happy to kill him myself. Revenge? Justice? Call it what you will.
By: hampden98 - 21st January 2014 at 17:57
The reason I believe we do not have the right to kill someone is because it is inhumane.
While their actions may be inhumane I do not see why killing the perpetrator makes the sentence just and not just revenge.
I also don’t understand why the family of the victim would want the perpetrator killed for any other reason than revenge.
How can it be just to kill those that have killed?
I’ll throw the question back at you. Why do you think the death penalty is anything other than revenge?
By: charliehunt - 21st January 2014 at 14:20
[
Oh, good grief. How patronising...
Oh it doesn’t bother me – I’m used to Linc by now.:rolleyes: And he never took up the point in my response to him, anyway.
And having had close dealings with the families of two individuals wrongly convicted I probably can add something meaningful to the debate. Which is about whether or not capital crimes should be punished by hanging. Coppers are responsible for bringing the guilty to justice, unless they get it wrong…….
By: snafu - 21st January 2014 at 14:06
Remember not so long ago, when an elderly Judge had to ask, “Who were THE BEETLES?”
[PEDANTIC]Well, its either a member of the Coleoptera order of insects or its an old Volkswagen…[/PEDANTIC]
Or did you mean Beatles?;o)
It’s blatantly obvious Chas, as you have never been a Copper, that you have little idea.
Oh, good grief. How patronising.
So…you’ve never been a murderer, so you are not allowed to comment on threads about capital punishment? Never been in the air force or a pilot so not allowed to comment on threads about aeroplanes, never been a god so can’t post on religious threads, or never been an executioner so not allowed to comment on death penalty threads?
How about, rather than talking down to Charlie, try putting the reason why its blatantly obvious to you (a former copper) so that all the other non ex-coppers can see why you feel that way. This is a forum, and since posting is not restricted to professional knowledge about a subject only (whereby it would be very boring, no matter how many people might wish for that to be the rule) it should not be assumed that your knowledge is shared by all who read your threads but that you need to explain yourself.
I’ve recently been reading about hanging, drawn and quartering and the use of the Guillotine as a means of capital punishment. Guess you lot would would be demanding one or the other to be reinstated…
By: TonyT - 20th January 2014 at 19:14
My ideal prison for murderers is the one in Ben Hur when they go to release his mother and daughter and they ask when he last saw them to be told never ( 5 years in prison ) but they are still alive as the food dissapears…
By: Creaking Door - 20th January 2014 at 09:18
Let’s put the pensioners in jail and the criminals in a nursing home.
Many a true word is spoken in jest!
By: silver fox - 20th January 2014 at 09:17
Sorry to link this to benefits, but the thing that really winds so many up is the knowledge that convicted criminals are costing so much to simply keep, real people in real need, struggle and scramble to survive on a pittance, yet we apparently spend £37,000 per person, per annum to keep scum in comfort and safety.
I’ve no doubt that someone will come on here, with comments on the lines of “it’s no fun in prison” or “I don’t know what I’m talking about”. Very happy to state that I’ve no idea of what prison life entails, but equally I fail to understand why more is spent on the safety and security of criminals than for instance our own law abiding pensioners, how come they can appeal (and very often win) against loss of privileges, loss of facilities, or as posted on here the state of their bed, tell me, before I retired I had a company car, since then have had to buy and run my own, can I claim for loss of privilege?
By: trumper - 20th January 2014 at 09:15
The prisoners at best should be entitled to something to sleep on, a book of educational use, some food – no choice you get what you get, and a bucket to poo in and soap and cold water.A dull low wattage bulb.
A popular tongue in cheek online message,i suspect there is more truth in this than they would like to admit 🙁
“Let’s put the pensioners in jail and the criminals in a nursing home.
This Way the pensioners would have access to showers, hobbies and walks. They’d Receive unlimited free prescriptions, dental and medical treatment, wheel Chairs etc and they’d receive money instead of paying it out. They would have constant video monitoring, so they could be helped Instantly, If they fell, or needed assistance.
Bedding would be washed twice a week, and all clothing would be ironed and Returned to them. A guard would check on them every 20 minutes and bring Their Meals and snacks to their cell.
They would have family visits in a suite built for that purpose.
They would have access to a library, weight room, spiritual counselling,
Pool And education. Simple clothing, shoes, slippers, PJ’s and legal aid would be free, on Request. Private, secure rooms for all, with an exercise outdoor yard, with Gardens.
Each senior could have a PC a TV radio and daily phone calls.
There would be a board of directors to hear complaints, and the guards would Have a code of conduct that would be strictly adhered to.
The “criminals” would get cold food, be left all alone and unsupervised.
Lights off at 8 PM, and showers once a week.
Live in a tiny room and pay £900.00 per month and have no hope of ever
Getting Out.
Justice for all we say.”
By: charliehunt - 20th January 2014 at 05:59
Agree with much of the above. Life should mean life with no expectation of early release. And prisoners for whatever crime should be “punished”. Apart from the basic needs – food, exercise, books, an hour’s TV per day perhaps, they should feel deprived every day.
Today’s focus on human rights has lost any sense of perspective. And in committing crime the criminal has sacrificed some of those rights. Rights come with duties and responsibilities and do not exist in isolation.
By: TonyT - 20th January 2014 at 01:31
Sorry to hear that Kev, 🙁 yes at the time I was in the RAF, prisoners received a higher cost allowance for food..
By: Lincoln 7 - 19th January 2014 at 23:48
That’s a very sad story Kev. I agree with you on what you more or less say, that prisoners today, have a better quality of life inside, than a lot outside.
However, we are the makers of the comforts they have inside prisons today, it appears it is their “RIGHT” to have Sky T.V. a fully equipped gym, etc, etc, You know of a recent case?, wherebye a prisoner even attained in getting money from the system, by stating his bed in his cell was causing him back ache. You couldn’t make it up.However, his Human Rights, it was judged were breached, so he had a new bed, and also compensation of, I.I.R.C. was in the region of £2,000.
I am of the opinion, that if you are banged up for any serious crime, you should lose all the “Rights” you had outside.And should also be made to work for their keep.
However, that’s just my opinion, having dealt with that sort of scum for 30 yrs.I thought the Law was, that if anyone who was attacked, and died of their injuries within One year, and One day, they had to carry out a thorough investigation, not just close the case.
Jim.
Lincoln .7
By: kev35 - 19th January 2014 at 23:00
I wasn’t going to do this but here goes…….
My Uncle was murdered. To be more precise he died as a direct result of the complications arising from injuries received when attacked violently in his own home. Just for Jim, the local Police were wonderful. On his death they decided to close the file on his assault and NOT begin a new investigation into his death. The reason given was that he was in his 80’s and he would probably have died soon anyway. The injuries he sustained, broken ribs, extensive bruising, major skin tears etc., were not really contributing factors in the cause of his death which was pneumonia. They failed spectacularly to acknowledge that he developed pneumonia as a direct consequence of his broken ribs which meant he could no longer inflate his lungs sufficiently to avoid the development of pneumonia. No attack equals no broken ribs equals no pneumonia. But that is the quality of British Policing for you.
I’ve thought long and hard about this in the years since. The attacker does not need a deterrent to future offending, nor does he need rehabilitation. He chose to commit this crime. What he does need is punishment and the death penalty would be a few weeks waiting for sentence to be carried out and then the long drop and death within moments. It would be far better to give properly convicted murderers a whole life sentence. But they should have no more spent on their care and maintenance than the members of our society who have the lowest standard of living. I was told once by a Prison Officer that a prisoner’s daily allowance for food is greater than that provided to members of the Armed Forces or for patients in hospitals. Imprisonment should not just be the removal of liberty, it should be the removal of privileges too. Too much emphasis is placed on the human rights of the murderer whilst the rights of the victim die with them. That is an issue that needs addressing urgently.
It’s a debate that’s been done to death, both here and elsewhere. It’s probably a debate that’s almost as old as time.
Regards,
kev35
By: TonyT - 19th January 2014 at 22:31
The death penalty sounds to me like revenge rather than punishment.
I would like to see more realistic sentences. 300 years without parole.
Tell that to those on death row, it is more than revenge, the. Human being is very adaptable to their surroundings, they get on with it and it soon becomes the norm, prison life is just the same, after a couple of years you settle into a regime..
My view is if you have killed someone, their life has ended, they no longer have the opportunity to live on no matter the circumstances, and neither should the killer, I am abhorred that we have got to the circumstances we have today where the worst crime you can commit is priced at 15 years, murder does not simply effect one life it effects many. You can get more for robbing a bank, murder where it is cut and dry should carry the death sentence, if not the person should never see the world again from the outside of a cell.
By: trumper - 19th January 2014 at 20:00
I would like to see more realistic sentences. 300 years without parole.
.
This made me smile,in a nice way 🙂 300 years ,who’s going to be around to bury them when they die of old age 🙂
By: 19kilo10 - 19th January 2014 at 19:20
No. We do not have the right to take someones life regardless of what they have done (with the possible exception of mass genocide but that’s a different court).
The death penalty sounds to me like revenge rather than punishment.
I would like to see more realistic sentences. 300 years without parole.As to 37’000 to house an inmate. That sounds like typical bureaucratic waste.
Why do we not have the right?
By: charliehunt - 19th January 2014 at 17:34
Just one miscarriage of justice for a capital crime is one too many. It’s as simple as that.
By: hampden98 - 19th January 2014 at 17:24
No. We do not have the right to take someones life regardless of what they have done (with the possible exception of mass genocide but that’s a different court).
The death penalty sounds to me like revenge rather than punishment.
I would like to see more realistic sentences. 300 years without parole.
As to 37’000 to house an inmate. That sounds like typical bureaucratic waste.
By: AlanR - 19th January 2014 at 15:52
There is no such thing as certainty, and we already use the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ burden of proof to convict people of all felonies, so there would have to be an even higher level of proof than that.
I disagree, there have over the years been cases where there is no doubt whatsoever.
By: Moggy C - 19th January 2014 at 08:48
Ah… excellent Tony. I’m relieved it wasn’t me. Consuming one bottle of Prosecco and one of Sauvignon Blanc whilst watching The Bridge is not an aid to razor sharp comprehension 🙂
Moggy
By: TonyT - 19th January 2014 at 00:08
Oddly I was agreeing Moggie just no to Sharia law… Just I re read it lol and it made no sense in respect to your post, please excuse the gibberish, I’ve been hanging about this forum to much and it’s rubbing off on me :p