Serious subject

There is no perfect system, and even if all prisoners should be given a chance to clean up their act inside, that doesn’t mean that they should be released. Life should mean life. Forever. In some inhospitable hole of a prison without creature comforts. If they behave then they can get better conditions, but their sentence is as much to punish as to re-habilitate, and for some this means the rest of their natural lives in jail.

Spot on.
I am increasingly disgusted by all these criminals that have taken the life of others, be it by design or by incompetence (bad driving, accidental shooting, etc) and walk away with a couple of years in a hotel. Yes, hotel, as that is what our prisons are now!

Punishment must fit the crime.

And to bring the subject back to torture again,my daughter’s been playing nothing but Def Leppard REALLY LOUD since she got back from Download .

Wow, that is cruel and unusual punishment! 😮

And to bring the subject back to torture again,my daughter’s been playing nothing but Def Leppard REALLY LOUD since she got back from Download .

The big mistake Bumble Bee is making is in thinking that some of us have interesting and worthwhile lives.;)

Regards,

kev35

You’re not used to Internet discussion forums, are you? 🙂

All right if I put another post on this thread on Christmas Day then ? Oh dear,I really am frittering away my twilight years .

Kev,
We are all the products of our experiences. I would never judge who is right here because I cannot imagine what you might be feeling from what you have been through. My experiences lead me to my views and, if we were ever to discuss road safety, I would have strong views on people being forced to drive while too tired – but that is not for today.

Now please tell me what any of you think would be a just and appropriate sentence had he been caught and how you would propose to rehabilitate the man who killed my Uncle.

In my view the correct sentence would be the ones currently reserved for unlawful killing. I’m genuinely shocked at the responses your family have had from the police.
Rehabilitation depends on the person – in this case they may or may not be capable of it. A cop out answer I know but I cling to my hope that there will always be those who show genuine remorse and the system should be geared to rehabilitating where possible.

Further cloudied by the case that some lads are pressured into doing this. So very difficult call that one.

If somebody can be turned in one direction then can they be turned back? I’ve suggested we keep that option open.

There is an old pagan way that involves rituals etc that can be traced into witchcraft aswell. This being either white witchcraft or black it doesnt really matter but it does stem from the pagans. That if you carry out an act on somebody expect to get it back 10 fold.

“Eye for an eye” is about vengeance but the original Babylonian system was intended to restrict retribution to an equal response.
If this method was to indeed restrict retribution to an equal response then it sounds like a bloody good system then doesnt it.

One answers the other – the origin in Babylonian law was for vengeful action to be proportionate.

I think this could be argued over for years to come and none of us will ever agree on this.

I don’t think agreement should be our aim here. But by listening to others views we can, occasionally, learn something new. Since this thread became a little less extreme I’ve gained something from it – although you might find I’m not a convert.

It has gone a long way off topic but has, eventually, served some purpose.

Allan

This thread was never intended to be about crime and punishment but it got completely sidetracked which is why I stopped posting.You could carry on debating until the cows come home to no useful purpose,I really think the thread has come to the end of its life.

You’re not used to Internet discussion forums, are you? 🙂

And you probably won’t know kev that a schoolfriend was systematically raped for years by her own father,unknown to anyone,even when she became pregnant several times then miscarried.She revealed this many years later,but he died before any action could be taken and her mother went to her grave denying it ever happened.I’ve discussed crime and punishment enough times over the course of my 61 years to realise that you never get agreement on how to punish this sort of crime or indeed any other kind .

You’re probably right but no one can explain to me or justify how sentencing/reform/rehabilitation works in the case of someone who has taken a life.

My Uncle was admitted to hospital and began to recover but the several broken ribs and bruised sternum meant he couldn’t breathe properly and as a result died of pneumonia. He would not have contracted pneumonia had he not been assaulted.

Now please tell me what any of you think would be a just and appropriate sentence had he been caught and how you would propose to rehabilitate the man who killed my Uncle. An innocent man watching a tennis match in the comfort of his own home died because of this attack. I would like to be man enough to think I could see everyone’s point and realise and respect the fact that this man has the same human rights as the man he killed. I would like to be forgiving. But I am not big enough. I wouldn’t wish him to be kicked to within an inch of his life and then spend the next three weeks drowning in his own mucus, but by the same token, I don’t think he deserves the right to live either.

Does the killer deserve to live? IMHO, no. He represents the lowest form of human scum that walks the earth, and I would have no problem if he were to leave us permanently.

What I do have a problem with is giving the state powers to take people’s lives away.

And like it or not, innocent people can and have been convicted of murder and subsequently executed. The same incompetence on behalf of the Criminal Justice System would not be solved just because Capital Punishment would be introduced. What is your message to the innocent people killed by the Courts, or to their families? ‘Sorry, we got it wrong’ simply isn’t good enough.

Yes, you have said that you would only sanction the death penalty if there is irrefutable evidence, but the distinction between refutable or irrefutable is purely arbitrary.

Witness can lie, or be mistaken. DNA can go a long way to proving guilt, but is cannot be used as a cover-all evidential standard.

I’m sorry, but with so many little caveats and provisos, the endless variation between cases and the risk of killing innocent people, I firmly believe that as a system of law, Capital punishment cannot be applied consistently or fairly.

Quite before we tackle the hypocrisy of killing someone in return for killing, shouldn’t the law, above all things, be there to set an example? It may be idealist, but the state must, if at all possible, be beyond reproach, and state sanctioned killings can never be so. There are too many gray areas, too many one-off situations and too much subjectivity.

There are people who probably don’t deserve to live after the crimes they have committed, but if we still want to hold the moral high ground, still be able to have a consistent legal system that is applied without arguments made from emotion, unbiased and sets a standard to follow, then Capital punishment cannot provide this.

There is no perfect system, and even if all prisoners should be given a chance to clean up their act inside, that doesn’t mean that they should be released. Life should mean life. Forever. In some inhospitable hole of a prison without creature comforts. If they behave then they can get better conditions, but their sentence is as much to punish as to re-habilitate, and for some this means the rest of their natural lives in jail.

This thread was never intended to be about crime and punishment but it got completely sidetracked which is why I stopped posting.You could carry on debating until the cows come home to no useful purpose,I really think the thread has come to the end of its life.

Indeed, you are right. But the same could be said about the debate on torture. You probably won’t know this but one of the great joys of fora such as this is the fact that we stray from one connected topic to another.

But yes, you are right. This debate is pointless for the following reasons:

My uncle is still dead.

The killer walks free and will probably live a long and prosperous life and when he reaches the age of the man he killed, will sit down with his Grandchildren and tell them what life was like in the ‘good old days.’

The Politicians are afraid of debate for fear of being found to be the charlatans that the expenses scandal proved many of them to be.

But what of our bomber described above? Well I imagine he’ll retire into politics and spend the rest of his life condemning any new sectarian killings as deplorable/evil/unacceptable* while quietly forgetting that it was something at which he himself excelled.

* = Delete as appropriate.

Regards,

kev35

This thread was never intended to be about crime and punishment but it got completely sidetracked which is why I stopped posting.You could carry on debating until the cows come home to no useful purpose,I really think the thread has come to the end of its life.

Let me ask you one thing of all those who think the murderer has the same rights as the victim.

Who gave the murderer the RIGHT to take the life of another.

No one did he took that upon himself just like he took the life of his victim.

In my world he would hang in the dead of night with complete silence other than the rope getting tighter round his neck.

Pondskater you quote this.

“Eye for an eye” is about vengeance but the original Babylonian system was intended to restrict retribution to an equal response.

If this method was to indeed restrict retribution to an equal response then it sounds like a bloody good system then doesnt it.

But just how you implement such a system for a petty thief versus a child rapist or murderer of anyone I just dont know.

I think this could be argued over for years to come and none of us will ever agree on this. As I mentioned before I dont think I will ever see the death penalty brought back in this country in my lifetime so it seems pointless to dicuss it further.Well pehaps pointless is the wrong word but I am growing tired of this thread as everyone has such differing opinions and just as you though the thread was done someone else pops up and reignites the discussion. Lets save it until they do indeed try to introduce it again and the lets get a debate going again. Now if you guys dont mind I wont post anymore on this one but I will keep reading.

Very well thought of posting by some and no doubt very emotional for everyone.

.

1) But what if he immediately feels remorse, realising that he has been influenced by others, horror struck by what he has done.Should he be allowed the chance to reform.

2) Obviously the human rights of the victim are the same as the murderer.

On point number one the answer would be no. He deserves to die. Only thing about this is that a hell of a lot of bombers have become suicide bombers as this seems to be the only way to get the bomb to the right place and to detonate at the right time. Thus they become martyrs. So this kind of makes the death penalty null and void for him as he would already be dead.

Another thing that clouds this situation is that if he were caught before the act and diffused would he still face the death penalty??

Difficult one that as death has not occured by his hand yet but the intention was there. Further cloudied by the case that some lads are pressured into doing this. So very difficult call that one.

But in the first instance he does deserve to be executed.

Point no two no the rights of the victim are not the same as the murderer. He gives up any rights when he takes the life of another no matter who they are. And again he deserves to die.

There is an old pagan way that involves rituals etc that can be traced into witchcraft aswell. This being either white witchcraft or black it doesnt really matter but it does stem from the pagans. That if you carry out an act on somebody expect to get it back 10 fold. Basically meaning if you cursed someone then you could expect that curse back on yourself 10 times stronger. This seems kind of relavant here.

You’re probably right but no one can explain to me or justify how sentencing/reform/rehabilitation works in the case of someone who has taken a life.

My uncle would not have died if he had not been punched in his own home, pushed to the ground and kicked several times in the chest by a man less than half his age and twice his weight. The man who attacked my Uncle continued to steal while he lay on the floor and apparently even threatened to kick him again. He then calmly left the house and was never seen again.

My Uncle was admitted to hospital and began to recover but the several broken ribs and bruised sternum meant he couldn’t breathe properly and as a result died of pneumonia. He would not have contracted pneumonia had he not been assaulted.

The Police excelled themselves. They posted leaflets through neighbours doors, took one brief statement and did not give my Uncle the opportunity to try and identify his attacker. They questioned why he had not alerted the Police at the time of the attack. The answer being that it took him some four hours to summon help. Upon being told of his death they said there was nothing for them to do as he had died of natural causes.

As far as we know my Uncle’s attacker is still roaming the street carrying out the same kind of attacks. Had he been caught the Police said the most serious charge possible was GBH!

Now please tell me what any of you think would be a just and appropriate sentence had he been caught and how you would propose to rehabilitate the man who killed my Uncle. An innocent man watching a tennis match in the comfort of his own home died because of this attack. I would like to be man enough to think I could see everyone’s point and realise and respect the fact that this man has the same human rights as the man he killed. I would like to be forgiving. But I am not big enough. I wouldn’t wish him to be kicked to within an inch of his life and then spend the next three weeks drowning in his own mucus, but by the same token, I don’t think he deserves the right to live either.

Regards,

kev35

You have a man who quite calmly plants a bomb, he places it where he has calculated it will cause the greatest death and injury, prepares so well that he knows exactly what time would be best to set the bomb to go off to cause maximum devastation. He then leaves the site and returns to his family offering no warning.

I think the liklihood is that he will die in custody – whether there is a death penalty in force or not.

But what if he immediately feels remorse, realising that he has been influenced by others, horror struck by what he has done. Should he be punished? Of course he must be. That is the deterrent part of the punishment. Should he be allowed the chance to reform – only if he is capable of change. Would somebody who killed 20 be allowed out again? I doubt it but I don’t know.

Or do you consider the human rights of the victims to be of less value than the bomber? Of course not. So how then can you actually reason that he deserves opportunities he denied to his victims.

Obviously the human rights of the victim are the same as the murderer. The right to life is the most sacred, although the European Human Rights Act does allow the taking of life as a punishment or in self defence. (See BBC summary) Part of punishment is the denial of other rights, liberty, privacy etc.

A life without freedom is still a life. If we believe that life is precious then the most fitting punishment would be to deny the bomber a life of any kind.

I think that if life is so precious then the state should demonstrate that by not allowing executions.

The majority of countries in the world have now abolished, or no longer practice the death penalty, and the trend is in that direction. The only so called “fully developed countries” still with the death penalty are the USA, Japan and Singapore.

When one looks into specific details in this way it is a tough subject.

Allan

My missus helps to convict child abusers.
I never get to hear names (Obviously) but I hear the outcomes and the trial details etc. To me, it’s perhaps the most disturbing thing a human could do.
Very especially the “Groomers”. They get a kick from grooming a 1 year old until they are say 7 or 8. Sooner if that’s what they are into.
There are often leaks from the Courts. The court transcripts sell for £400 / £500 on the “Special” units. Sick.
They are quite impossible to reform. This is why I said a long time back that it is claimed these sorts are mentally ill. Lots of drugs and other institutional treatments do not work. Upon release they offend again………even if it’s looking at a playground full of kids, when they have been specifically told to keep away from such places as part of the rehab. / parole.

If their mothers knew they would give birth to such, they would abort.

Allan.

Let me ask you something.

You have a man who quite calmly plants a bomb, he places it where he has calculated it will cause the greatest death and injury, prepares so well that he knows exactly what time would be best to set the bomb to go off to cause maximum devastation. He then leaves the site and returns to his family offering no warning.

You propose that this bomber should be given the opportunity to reform, to better himself after his punishment. He has denied any rights to his victims and their families. How much ‘reform’ is enough? Let’s say he killed twenty and just by law of averages inflicted irrepairable harm upon those families running into the hundreds. I do struggle to see that if the man is found guilty and there is absolute proof that he is responsible, that he actually deserves to continue living. Or do you consider the human rights of the victims to be of less value than the bomber? Of course not. So how then can you actually reason that he deserves opportunities he denied to his victims.

A life without freedom is still a life. If we believe that life is precious then the most fitting punishment would be to deny the bomber a life of any kind.

Regards,

kev35

why should this crim get off easily with a humane death. What he did to your uncle was not humane.

Because if we lose our humanity we have lost our civilisation and then what are we? “Eye for an eye” is about vengeance but the original Babylonian system was intended to restrict retribution to an equal response.

Kev, I do disagree with you but your post has been the first thing in this long discussion to make me pause and question my own views. I follow your logic but, even with all the safeguards you propose, you are denying the guilty of their opportunity to reform. They should be punished in full, the punishment should be relevant to the crime but shouldn’t society also give somebody the chance to be something better after that punishment? If you can demonstrate 100% that they will not change, then I would still opt for life without parole (we have examples now: Brady, Sutcliffe). Whether denying somebody freedom is more cruel than denying them life is another discussion.

Our justice system must deliver suitable punishments but also must show that punishment is relevant to the crime and provide proper support to victims. Your comments make me think that one or all of these has failed.

Allan

Just a quick question for anyone who is in support of the death penalty…and I think the only one here is OldShape

If, after an execution has been carried out it comes to light that an innocent person has been wrongly killed, would you stand by the system?

Given that this has already happened, are you saying that you are willing to let innocent people die so that others can be ‘rightfully’ (in the loosest sense of the word) executed?

What purpose does execution actually serve, and in what way is it superior to incarceration? From what I have seen presented here it would be financially the more expensive option, would have no system of recourse after sentence is carried out, and I remain unconvinced that it would carry significant deterrent value. After all, if it was an effective deterrent we would never see anyone convicted of murder in states where execution is on the statute books, and in any case the majority of murders are in spur of the moment violence rather than pre-meditated.

If anyone I cared for was murdered, then I admit, I would not feel morally in the wrong for dealing out the same to whomever perpetrated the act, in fact I would probably be in favour of it; but is this any way to construct a justice system?

This is exactly why I stated a 12-0 jury, lots of forensic etc.
That bally great big report on the Californy system stated that there was no evidence whatsoever that they had killed an innocent person……but that isn’t to say that they “Could” at some point.

I think our hang-ups on evidence stem back from the 1950’s England, where some chap was hanged on verbal evidence…later found to be innocent. And another one where the accused stated he was under the station clock at the time…..he could here it ticking. It was an electric clock so his alibi was shot to pieces. Weeks after the hanging, the janitor mentioned that the clock ticked in cold weather due to the motor being a bit worn.
That sort of stuff is totally unacceptable.

but done privately and humanely. For me, the purpose of the death penalty would be to deny any form of fulfillment of a life to the perpetrator. There is no need to do this in public, or to make it painful.

As my Uncle died as a result of injuries received when he was attacked at home you may well say this is just an emotional response. I cannot deny that, I am an emotional man. But even if the perpetrator was found, I would not wish him any more than a humane death. For him to be deprived of life as he deprived my Uncle of life. That would be enough, and only then if there was irrefutable proof that he was the guilty party. Why should the man who caused the death of my Uncle, who kicked him in the chest as he lay on the floor, with no more thought than kicking a tin can, be allowed to serve a minimal prison sentence then go on to live a fulfilled life.

Kev

I understand your feelings and respect that.

But in your case I cannot help but feel (this is speaking personally) why should this crim get off easily with a humane death. What he did to your uncle was not humane.

I will stop there as I do not want to upset anyone over this thread again but it is as I have said before in this thread. An eye for an eye.

Sorry one last thing. I guess if any sort of death penalty was to be introduced then the family of the victim would be the one who could stop the execution. ie if they felt strongly enough that the execution should not or could not be allowed to happen then they would have that say. But then how would you implement the aftercare of that prisoner. Would it be interred for life ie dies in prison or would it be 30 years then 20 then 10 as we got softer again.

Hard thing to come to terms with I suppose if you were the executioner of an innocent man or woman. I guess it would be a hazard of the job.

After all the executioner only comes into do the job the authorities have handed down.