In the Posting, “Words fail me” mention was made, that barbaric though it may seem criminals are sometimes stoned to death for the crime they committed.
So, I ask this que
estion. Crime rates are up, in nearly all areas of crime, so the question I pose is this. Do you think that it would make any difference to the crime rate if hanging was brought back, along with, and many of us have had it, a good caning at school, or what deterrent do you think would bring the crime rate down?.
Lincoln .7
By: Grey Area - 8th February 2011 at 07:41
Moderator Message
There is nothing to be gained from the circular repetition of entrenched views – on both sides of the argument.
We’ve arrived at the fingers in the ears while going “la la la la, I can’t hear you” stage now, so it’s time to put this one to bed.
And I hope someone’s going to clear up all those straw men……
GA
By: Lincoln 7 - 7th February 2011 at 23:38
So, the Murder of an 8 month pregnant girl in Wales.
Her killer has rights until the verdict…..but should he/she/they be allowed to be a part of our society (And that includes in a Cell)?
Even the Pope or the Arch. of Cant. would tie the knot in the hanging Rope for this sort.….Hang on, Pope, Nazi…. GODWIN!
I think this needless murder of a young mother to be and her unnborn child, one of the worse cases of murder I have ever heard of.I for one will be following this case to the letter. I am wondering if it was the father who did it to escape having to provide for mother and child?.
And if the Perp who did it gets what he deserves.
Sky High buddy, knowing your views on hanging, would not this case give you food for thought re hanging?.
Lincoln .7
By: PeeDee - 7th February 2011 at 23:30
So, the Murder of an 8 month pregnant girl in Wales.
Her killer has rights until the verdict…..but should he/she/they be allowed to be a part of our society (And that includes in a Cell)?
Even the Pope or the Arch. of Cant. would tie the knot in the hanging Rope for this sort.
….Hang on, Pope, Nazi…. GODWIN!
By: Lincoln 7 - 7th February 2011 at 23:25
It’s virtualy impossible for this to have gone full circle, as opinions change on a daily basis.
Lincoln.7
By: Sky High - 7th February 2011 at 15:22
Where you got the idea that I defend murders I cannot imagine and if you re-read my posts carefully you will understand how I could not possibly be in favour of capital punishment. What more is there to say? As I said the debate has come full circle.
By: Lincoln 7 - 7th February 2011 at 15:16
Well, of course, the words are academic and judges do not have to sentence in those terms because we no longer hang people for capital offences and have not done so for 50 years, for the reasons we have been debating in this thread.
So we have come full circle in a way and although the topic is “hot”, as you entitled it we have come through relatively unscathed but I don’t see that any more discussion is going to achieve anything, so I’ll leave it there…..for now. No doubt it will reappear as these subjects tend to in the forum.:)
Well Peter, you surprise me, leaving this post, or is it because deep down you know you cannot defend murders anymore than you have, or because you believe they should be hung?.but don’t wish to admit it.
Lincoln .7
By: Lincoln 7 - 7th February 2011 at 15:09
I am sure that if the words I quoted are good enough for a High Court Judge or appeal judges to accept, then I am afraid we to have to accept them. Words like those, are hard proven and accepted by Judges, and Top of the tree Lawyers, so your never ever going to get that wording changed, it falls on the criminals side more than the innocents, I know, I have been in more Courts than you have hot dinners Peter believe me.From the Old Baily, down.
Lincoln .7
O.K> Peter, lets assume that as there is no death penalty in the U.K. but thieves, those who batter 80 yr olds, robbers, murderers and the like, are at our expence in prison, enjoying SKY, T.V. all the games, including nintendo, and all the things like that which my Grandchildren have,to play on T.V. with, Gyms, their own special places to pray, if they are in an ethnic minority, don’t have to work, and all the other things they have, do you think it’s right?
I am afraid I dont, G.A. and this is for you, prison is supposed to be a deterrent, yet they are all bursting at the seams, so much so, we are even letting minor offenders home early, if they were in prison for MINOR offences, why were they send down anyway.
In prison, you should be made to be productive, made it to be like a living hell, so you dont re offend and go back, but oh no, the P.C. brigade would soon put a stop to that.
So Peter, what would you do, let them live a life of luxery as they do, or make them work their balls off, (Personaly, I would cut them off)
Lincoln .7
By: Sky High - 7th February 2011 at 15:08
Well, of course, the words are academic and judges do not have to sentence in those terms because we no longer hang people for capital offences and have not done so for 50 years, for the reasons we have been debating in this thread.
So we have come full circle in a way and although the topic is “hot”, as you entitled it we have come through relatively unscathed but I don’t see that any more discussion is going to achieve anything, so I’ll leave it there…..for now. No doubt it will reappear as these subjects tend to in the forum.:)
By: Lincoln 7 - 7th February 2011 at 14:40
If you are going to hang a man the words have to be “Beyond ANY doubt whatsoever”. Nothing less could be morally or legally acceptable.
I am sure that if the words I quoted are good enough for a High Court Judge or appeal judges to accept, then I am afraid we to have to accept them. Words like those, are hard proven and accepted by Judges, and Top of the tree Lawyers, so your never ever going to get that wording changed, it falls on the criminals side more than the innocents, I know, I have been in more Courts than you have hot dinners Peter believe me.From the Old Baily, down.
Lincoln .7
By: Sky High - 7th February 2011 at 14:30
If you are going to hang a man the words have to be “Beyond ANY doubt whatsoever”. Nothing less could be morally or legally acceptable.
By: Lincoln 7 - 7th February 2011 at 14:29
Well, exactly – this is the point I was trying to make. Some posters seem to think it as some kind of holy grail.
I wouldn.t say that DNA is the Holy Grail, but in many cases, it is still the deciding factor in most cases where DNA is submitted by the prosecution as evidence., the final nail in the coffin one may say.
Lincoln. 7
By: Lincoln 7 - 7th February 2011 at 14:23
Precisely and where there is a scintilla of doubt you cannot hang a man, however strong other evidence might seem to be.
I think the words your looking for Peter are………BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
And this is why juries spend days, and sometimes months to agree to a 100% verdict.
A very powerfull few words they are, meaning the difference between freedom, and a lifetime in prison, it is extremely hard in any case to proove beyond a reasonable doubt these day, with a top quality brief, and if you have enough money, you CAN virtually get away with murder. A good example of this is footballers, and the odd politition caught speeding, have you noticed they all employ the same brief?.and they all get off, now, if it were you or I………….
Lincoln .7
😉
By: Sky High - 7th February 2011 at 14:06
Well, exactly – this is the point I was trying to make. Some posters seem to think it as some kind of holy grail.
Precisely and where there is a scintilla of doubt you cannot hang a man, however strong other evidence might seem to be.
By: jbritchford - 7th February 2011 at 14:02
Well, exactly – this is the point I was trying to make. Some posters seem to think it as some kind of holy grail.
By: Lincoln 7 - 7th February 2011 at 13:52
DNA is far from a perfect means of establishing guilt. It can be used, for example, where someone has been, but not necessarily what they did there.
Even if DNA is found on a murder weapon, it can only show who has held it, not who used it to kill. DNA is another, very useful tool for identifying individuals, but it is absolutely no substitute for a properly conducted, thorough investigation.
Hi. DNA is not 100% perfect, but by talking about it hypothetically without an actual case to talk about, I think it is hard to give an opinion. All criminals these days wear gloves, and overalls, which after the crime, they burn, ergo evidence gone.
Just say, frinstance a house holder has been threatened to hand over money by a perp, who was holding a hammer, but NOT wearing gloves, steals from the householder, bolts it and throws the hammer away, which by some strange coincidence some time after the robbery you see and pick up, its now got YOUR dna on it, how are you going to explain that, as at the time, of the robbery, you were alone at home, alone with no person to state you were indeed at home, the rest of the story is speculation, and circumstancial.
How would you get out of that one, as wearing a mask also, the householder couldn’t give a description of the perp.
How would YOU as it’s your posting deal with that scenario?.
Lincoln .7
By: Sky High - 7th February 2011 at 11:51
Thank you for this post.
By: jbritchford - 7th February 2011 at 11:13
USA has not killed an innocent in 30 or more years, for the reasons explained.
I know not whether this is true, I am no expert, but a simple google search ‘death row inmates acquitted’ gives some interesting results –
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-list-those-freed-death-row
Now, perhaps this is evidence that the system weeds out wrongful convictions. So it should. But I have little faith that a system that wrongfully convicts 138 people to death (and these are only the ones we know about) has the wherewithal to identify every wrongful conviction.
Also, you appear to be falling for the ‘no true scotsman’ fallacy, by defining all those executed as guilty you discount the possibility some of them were innocent.
Prison is far from perfect, but at least it has some chance of redress. Much more so than other, more permanent measures.
By: jbritchford - 7th February 2011 at 11:04
DNA is far from a perfect means of establishing guilt. It can be used, for example, where someone has been, but not necessarily what they did there.
Even if DNA is found on a murder weapon, it can only show who has held it, not who used it to kill. DNA is another, very useful tool for identifying individuals, but it is absolutely no substitute for a properly conducted, thorough investigation.
By: Mr Creosote - 7th February 2011 at 10:33
Why are you supporting the killer and his/her rights, when an innocent has been murdered?
I’m afraid you’ve lost me there. Where did I say that? :confused:
By: PeeDee - 6th February 2011 at 23:40
It amazes me how blithely some people talk about Human taking life, whether legally (ie state executions) or illegally. .
Comment on the Polish lad is above somewhere.
Why are you supporting the killer and his/her rights, when an innocent has been murdered? These killers have given up their rights to be called human.
Another addition to the debate, jail should also be a deterrent, instead of the 3 Star Gladiator School it has become.
When the Judge reads out a jail sentance, the prisoner should be begging for mercy. Now they just improve their criminal skills from the experts, bide their time so that they can ruin the life of some other members of the public.
Sign In
February 6, 2011 at 5:05 pm