No Sky High. You have made the assumption. A criminal causes the death of a person but you advocate only that the criminal be incarcerated. You do suggest that the crimimal should be incarcerated in ‘miserable conditions’, yet you know that no British Government is ever going to do that because of the Human Rights Act. The criminal who has taken a life will get to live a life, in pampered circumstances, the right to life of their victim has been irrevocably removed. How can anyone assume other than that you value the life of the criminal higher than that of the victim?

At the end of the day, you are advocating that the murderer should be given the right to live.

Regards,

kev35

Well you are entitled to your interpretation of my position but you are right about two things. You support capital punishment and I don’t. End of debate, I would suggest.

I have read all of your posts and I now await your answer to the question of why the life of a criminal, even a murderer, is worth more than that of the victim?

Regards,

kev35

I have never discussed the balance of value between the lives of murderers and victims. I can’t answer the question because you have made the assumption that the life of a criminal is worth more. That is your assumption not mine.

What you perhaps mean is you disagree with what Kev says but as his point is very fair, you can’t think of how to formulate a reply? I see no personal accusations or anything uncalled for anywhere in his posts; just the posing of a question you’re unable to answer.

Paul

Yet again we had better agree to differ. I certainly do not regard my comments or my position as arrogant nor should he infer from my remarks that his uncle is irrelevant.

The problem with the capital punishment debate is precisely what is being manifested here. I have posted my views clearly but will wait for Kev to answer for himself.

Sky High.

My Uncle must have been irrelevant too!

Thank you for your considered, if somewhat arrogant, opinion.

My point being that I believe there are cases where the death penalty is just and proper. It’s not about deterrence or punishment, it’s making sure that someone who has committed murder, and with modern forensic science guilt can, on occasion, be proven beyond any doubt, forefeits their own life. Yes, you will now argue merit, which is why each case should be judged individually.

You may be arrogant, but not naive enough to believe that any judicial system in the UK will ever treat prisoners with other than kid gloves. Their liberty is taken, but only for a very limited time in most cases.

It is most unfortunate that your acquantaince lost a brother to a miscarriage of justice. It is only now, and only on certain occasions that the death penalty should be applied. If there is doubt then it shouldn’t apply.

And you still avoided the question. Why do you consider the life of a criminal, even a murderer, to be worth more than the life of the victim?

Regards,

kev35

I’ll respond, once you have taken the trouble to read ALL of my posts on the subject and once you cease to make personal accusations which are both uncalled for and inappropriate and certainly add nothing to the debate.

It is not exactly clear how YOU would feel should a member of your family have died as a result of the injuries received when attacked in their own home. Some of us have the misfortune of knowing what that feels like. The attacker got away. Free to carry on his usual nefarious activities. Because my Uncle did not die till three weeks after the attack I doubt he even knew he’d caused his death. But it’s all too late now isn’t it? My uncle found his grave months or maybe even years before he should have. His attacker was not caught and therefore not punished in even the most trivial of ways.

I have one question for you Sky High. Please tell me how the life of the man who caused the death of an innocent, elderly man is more valuable than that of his victim? He attacked my Uncle with no more thought than most people give to swatting a fly.

Regards,

kev35

Regards,

kev35

Your remarks are irrelevant since they do not address the point I was making, if you read my post. But since you choose to make a specific point, many years ago the brother of a family acquaintance was hanged for a murder he was later found innocent of, and of which he protested his innocence to the gallows. But it was then too late to bring him back. So, you see, there will always be a personal vested interest, which will colour one’s view.

Perhaps the death penalty is not a good idea, basicaly because mistakes can be made.

However, if found guilty of taking a life, then you should serve life in prison. Not 4 years then get out on good behaviour. Life.

Yes, indeed – now we have some people talking sense here. I would also add a point I made in an earlier post that the guilty should not be pampered during their life sentence, they should, within the bounds of natural humanity, be aware, daily, that they are being punished.

In cases of premeditated murder the knowledge that if found guilty there would be no parole and no early release might focus the mind.

Is that including the ones who are subsequently found innocent?

I just wonder how many innocent people the supporters of the death penalty are willing to sacrifce just so that they can feel a little bit better, is 1/10 convictions an acceptable margin of error?

Well, exactly………………………

All…

Ryan

You have taken part of what I wrote, out of context, in response to a post from Nashio996. But at least we know your position, although it is not entirely clear how you would feel if a close friend or a member of your family was wrongly found guilty of murder and hanged. It’s a bit late then, isn’t it?