View Full Version : UK Death Penalty.

3rd Aug 2001, 20:28
Following the increase in indiscriminate car bombings in central London, should the UK reintroduce the death penalty?


3rd Aug 2001, 20:35
Generally No, because it's uncivilised. In this case, No, because you'd create martyr's and the problem would get worse.

3rd Aug 2001, 21:37

Killing people is wrong. it doesn`t matter who does it, whether a terrorist, or the state.

3rd Aug 2001, 22:46
Never mind the liberal [email protected] criminal-loving bleeding-heart defenders of cold-blooded gutless murderers - just fry the bastards.

[ 03 August 2001: Message edited by: Slasher ]

tony draper
3rd Aug 2001, 22:55
there are only six billion of us now so it is vital we keep even bomb planter in the gene pool.
Shoot the bastiges, shoot any body with a petrol bomb in their hands also.

Send Clowns
3rd Aug 2001, 23:46
No. There is no justification for killing someone if there is another way to stop them causing more harm. It is up to us to get that right. To stop them causing harm (i.e. you believe they have a gun (even if it turns out to be a lighter) or a bomb detonator (such as the England/Ireland international, SAS v PIRA in Gibraltar)) then fine, efficient killing is the best course, and we need people willing to be viscious enough to do that well.

If you want to punish people, leave them to rot on an indefinite sentence. No objection to that. To me that is much worse than the void of death, the living void of a lack of hope. Even if and when these people leave prison their lives have been completely ruined.

The Guvnor
4th Aug 2001, 00:58
I agree 100%, *Send Clowns*. To know that you're incarcerated for the rest of your natural has to be a living hell...

Nil nos tremefacit
4th Aug 2001, 01:39
Works if you make life mean life.

Personally, however, I think terrorists should be topped. It's sound economics. Why keep some git in klink for 40 years at the expense of the genuinely needy, when for the sake of a few quid you can dispose of him forever. In some countries they even charge the deceased's family for the execution. The important thing about martyrs is that they're all dead. Had we originally topped the 500 or so terrorists we recently released we could have saved a lot of hassle and a phenomenal amount of money. Bobby Sands, Frank Stagg and their ilk would not have been able to get their publicity when they starved themselves (still martyrs). The latest bomb in Ealing might even have been planted by people that we have already arrested, charged, found guilty and gaoled for murder. Rule one - dead men don't plant bombs!!!!!!!!!!!!

This wimpy pinko trot idea that you can lock up a religious/racial bigotted murderer for a few years and then release him just doesn't do justice to the victims. Every victim of the IRA did not deseve to be murdered. Most were ordinary folk going about the sort of things that we all do on a daily basis. Everyone who takes up arms against a democratic government to achieve, undemocratically, ends that they can't achieve through persuasion needs to be topped. There is no alternative - how do you persuade people not to kill when they believe that it is their right.

With regards to non-terrorist killings then everyone must be dealt with case by case. Most murder victims are killed by people they know and often passion and psychological urges take over. Even then, people who clinically plan murder should be at risk of the death penalty based on the circumstances.

Sorry not to be PC.

The Scarlet Pimpernel
4th Aug 2001, 02:29
Of course, the other alternative is to sentence them to life in solitary confinement. Bang them up and play a never ending tape of Celine Dion in their cell.

After a couple of months, throw a noose into the cell and Hey Presto! problem solved :D :D

The death penalty is the easy way out for some of these low lifes ... they need to be punished slowly and miserably.

4th Aug 2001, 02:31
FYI, if you look at the Sky News Internet news page, you'll find that 74% of those answering the poll agreed that the death penalty should be reinstituted.


Send Clowns
4th Aug 2001, 02:42
Doesn't work, Nil Nos. To be a proper martyr the 'enemy' has to kill you. The hunger strikers commited suicide (odd way to martyr oneself for a Catholic cause...).

Life need not mean life, in fact there are good arguments against that. Coming out after 25 years in jail, lost all that time a person's life is ruined.

Tartan Gannet
4th Aug 2001, 02:57
Yes for acts of terrorism which kill and for wilful and deliberate murder.

I wont waste my time posting justifications having been down this road too many times before. Those who agree need no convincing, those who are against will never be. A dead terrorist cannot kill again, and I dont buy into martyrdom.

[ 04 August 2001: Message edited by: Tartan Gannet ]

4th Aug 2001, 05:14
A few thoughts...

Send Clowns, "If you want to punish people, leave them to rot on an indefinite sentence".

Guv "I agree 100%, *Send Clowns*. To know that you're incarcerated for the rest of your natural has to be a living hell..."

And when that's over, knowing that your head is going to be sawn off as some places do will add that extra dread.

Nil Nos, "Bobby Sands, Frank Stagg and their ilk would not have been able to get their publicity when they starved themselves".
Where do they get their publicity from? From the frigging red tops, just like the current row about Brass Eye, they're horrified about it, know nothing about it, but it sells print, so RUN IT!

Rant mode off

4th Aug 2001, 09:06
Nope. Strangeley enough Im against slow and agonising torturus death for these pr!cks. To do that means to lower ourselves to there level. Just pass sentence, let them stew for 12 months on death row and get all religious and mellow, then string the bastards up or fry them.
Until you witness the pieces of little kids bodys lying on a bloodied footpath and those of inocent people whos only crime was walking down the street, youll never feel WHY these terrorist thugs have lost there right to live.

Doctor Cruces
4th Aug 2001, 09:26
I have to agree with several posts here. Just locking up a fanatic of any sort and then letting them out after a few years and hope they are rehabilitated? Yeah, right.

It is well documented that several IRA scum have been let out and were straight back to the bomb factory to kill more "English bastards".

The only way to deal with these people is to let the SAS have free reign in NI. They know WHO they are and they know WHERE they are. Give the boys a taste of their own medicine, let them know terror and let them be burried in the many Irish bogs as have some of their victims and thus just disappear.

A bit severe perhaps, but 22 years in the RAF as a "legitimate target" tends to polarise ones ideas marvellously.

Doc C.

4th Aug 2001, 14:40
Now, if you feel for whatever reason, religious or personal or whatever, that you're not allowed to kill. And if the state does it, it is just as bad. Than why do you suppose torture is oké ? Send Clowns, Guv ? You're still inflicting your will upon somebody without him or her wanting to. Where does one draw the line ? Solitary lockup, or can we beat them up every other week ? Or here near my home a prison with cable TV, gym, cafeteria, outdoor and indoor recreation area, and for some visitation rights ?
I personally think we're being way to nice.

4th Aug 2001, 15:21
Just to take an example-

If a mother's small child is killed by somebody who is mentally able and sound, just evil, and the murderer/ess is excecuted.

You might think it would:-

a)provide closure for the families of the victims (although I accept that the families of the murderer may be just as upset - avicious circle?)

b)Deter others from doing the same crime, knowing that they won't "just get 10 years" but actually be killed themselves, therefore the number of murders <may> decrease,

c)Send a message out to younger children that this sort of behaviour is wrong and if you partake in it the consequences will be dire and horrific.


I realise that this is a multi-dimensional arguement, and I personally can see it from both sides of the fence. For instance, I accept that if children see people being killed, they may find it MORE acceptable to punish someone else by killing them. Indeed, as some posters have already mentioned, it could be considered as lowering oneself to their level. There is also a religious/ethical arguement. Have we as people any right to take the life of another person away? Even if you decided that you could, who are you going to find to kill the guy? Is anyone with a conscience willing to kill another person?

I think that before any sort of torture/death penalty is introduced into the UK there needs to be a lot more consideration and discussion, and people need to look into the next generation of children/adults and see what effect it might have on them, not just us.


4th Aug 2001, 15:44
Re-institute the death penalty - and make it restrospective for the last 30 years.

tony draper
4th Aug 2001, 15:53
If we havent got the bottle to end their lives, give the buggers a prefrontal lobotomy, wipe their disc,turn them into harmless cabbages.

4th Aug 2001, 15:55
The problem I have with the death penalty is the justice system does convict innocent people on occasion.

tony draper
4th Aug 2001, 16:04
Well thats the price we may have to pay, most people are not quite happy at being watched by security camera's everywhere they go,but because of the action of criminals its a neccessity now.
I think we are going to get used to a lot more erosion of our civil liberties in future if things go on the way they are.
A small but increasing percentage of our population have shown they don't deserve liberty of any kind.

Chimbu chuckles
4th Aug 2001, 19:45
"Capital Punishment turns the State into a murderer, but on the other hand imprisonment turns the State into a Gay Dungeon Master"

With the advances in DNA Forensic Science how many people will be executed for crimes they didn't commit? Given strict evidential guidlines, none I would think, although I accept it may have happened in the past.

There is really only one arbitor in whether the Death Penalty is appropriate sentence for some crimes, and that is Society as a whole, not lefty, politically correct activists and certainly not the extreme right of politics.

Certainly I believe that it should be put to a vote and reinstated if it gets up, I will vote for it(given reasonable controls).

The world is becomming a decidedly dangerous place to live as populations grow, perhaps it's 'world rage'.

Bottom line for me is that if an individual or group has so little respect for human life that they can kill for pleasure or some bizaare political end, like Northern Ireland, then they forfeit their own human rights and deserve to die, if thats what society has decreed. The only other acceptable alternative,to me, is life imprisonment WITH NO POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE.

If you're a Terrorist,serial/mass murderer(or any really sick murderer like raping/murdering little boys/girls), then I would think you would believe an eye for an eye was a reasonable deal!


4th Aug 2001, 23:56
Maybe I'm not clued in properly, but isn't it a prerequisite for membership in the EU to refute capital punishment.

Since Latvia wants so badly to be a member of the EU, parliament has voted out the death penalty just incase the call comes to join the new world order.

I wasn't here during the Soviet days, but I'm told a judge then didn't lose too much sleep over condemning someone to death. During those days, politics and all the other stinking baggage aside, one could walk the streets of Riga at 3 a.m. without the fear of being assaulted.

5th Aug 2001, 00:34
I dont agree with the Death sentance, but how about this;

Prisoner is kept at minimal cost to the system-small mouldy cell, 2 meals a day of not very nice stuff, no liberties. Basically let them rot. In my opinion once they kill, they become sub-human in my mind, and should be treated like such.


5th Aug 2001, 04:17
But if they're sub-human, why not kill ?
You squoosh ants all the time.

5th Aug 2001, 10:27
A former assistant hangman named Sid Dernley wrote a book about his job. For each of his "clients" he first describes the crime through the trial evidence and then describes the execution. Amazingly, the time interval between opening the death cell door and the prisoner reaching the end of the rope was typically 10 seconds or so. Quite humane; the victim would hardly realise what was happening.

In his winding up chapter he muses on the effectiveness of his work and says that less than 10% of those sentenced were actually executed. In the UK of course, appeals did not drag on for years, the condemned got one chance to appeal on a point of law and sentence was usually carried out within three months of conviction. The hangmen could tell which executions would go ahead based on the severity of the crime and how long it had been since an execution had taken place in the prison where the condemned was held. They believed that executions were intended as a message to the other prisoners - who had already demonstrated criminal tendency - to reform while they had the chance.

Sid also pointed out that none of his clients ever re-offended and there was a question of wrongful conviction in only three cases - Evans, Hanratty and Ellis - during the time when he worked the gallows. In the ten years following the ending of the death penalty 35 people were killed by former prisoners who had killed previously.

I think that old Sid Dernley might have had a point. On the other hand Myra Hindley makes a good case for long term imprisonment. She so desperately wants to get out of jail that she's suffered what is to her a worse penalty than death. If she ever does get out she may find that life was better for her on the inside.

Through difficulties to the cinema

Qwin T Senshall
5th Aug 2001, 12:35
I am very much for the penalty for certain types of crime.

In particular for terrorist murder such as Omagh.

Regretably, too few people realise that terrorism works. The criminals do not do it because they are stupid and angry. They do it because the have a real chance of realising a political result. Whilst undoubtedly coldly evil, some of the every day faces we see on TV are intelligent, educated and very well trained (and funded).

If one is prepared to kill, or encourage it, there is a good chance that one could end up having hundreds of university beer halls named after one - or, indeed, one might end up as a government minister!

The type of politician who is prepared to kill and lie about it is hardly going to demure at mere financial corruption. The press go loopy over Archer?

And do we really expect soft headed tree huggers like the Blair project to get to grips with them?

No - catch them, preferably in the act, shoot them in the head and leave them to bleed to death in the gutters - to encourage the others!

I have lost too many good mates to agonise about the morality of state execution.


tony draper
5th Aug 2001, 13:14
There was a documentry about death row in the States recently , strange how all those low lives suddenly find jesus when thay are waiting for the chop.

The Americans need to speed up the process somewhat , get rid of these endless appeals that go on for decades, I suspect that has more to do with the legal profession squeezing every possible last dollar out of the event.
I admire the yanks for that, a fifty year sentence means fifty years across there.
and if a judge says life that is exactly what it means.
Judges in this country should not be allowed to say "I sentence you to life imprisonment"
Its a big bloody lie, fifteen years and one third off, is ten years, another third for good behaviour, and jack the lad is back walking the streets in five years.

Tartan Gannet
5th Aug 2001, 13:25
Blacksheep, would agree with you completetly but for some detail points.

I will accept that Evans, whilst NOT Guilty, was culpable and even complicit in some of the deeds of Christie but by virtue of his very low mental acuity should NOT have hanged.

Hanratty, a vicious thug, guilty as hell and deserved everything he got. Recent DNA investations have proved his guilt and blown his alibi and the lies of Albon to bits.

Ellis. Yes she DID murder her thug of a boyfriend. No question about that. Should she have hanged? Well, we DONT have "crime passionelle" in the UK. One COULD argue that the balance of her mind was so distrubed and that as such she ought to have been spared execution. Maybe. I did read that only a few months before the execution of Ruth Ellis a rather frumpy middle aged woman called Mrs Christofoli was executed for the murder of a rich old lady in her care. There were no emotional protests about her hanging, but she of course was NOT a pretty young blonde.

You haven't mentioned the only case that I personally feel was dubious, the Craig-Bentley murder. A Policeman was shot dead after a robbery by Christopher Craig, who in my book should have hanged but was too young by the rules then in force. Derek Bentley was his accomplice and sufficiently old. He was already in the hands of the police and shouted to Craig, who had a gun, "Let him have it Chris!" refering to the policeman trying to apprehend Craig, who then shot and killed the copper. For this Bentley was found guilty of murder and being the accomplice, under the laws then in force, was hanged. Bentley was another feeble minded individual who may not have fully understood the consquencies of his actions. Books have been written on what "Let him have it Chris" meant, was it hand over the gun, or shoot him? We will never know. Sadly Craig is still around having done his time in prison and is a middle aged man. He truly bears the guilt for the death not only of the policeman but of his companion Derek Bentley.

I totally agree that the British Variable Drop method of hanging was very humane compared to the other well known methods used. The weight and height of the subject is taken into account and the length of the drop is calculated accordingly. The idea being to break the neck between the 2nd and 3rd cervical vertibrae and sever the spinal cord. Death should be instantaneous. The US method of a fixed drop could lead to a slow death by strangulation, some of the Nazis hanged by the Yanks after the war took 24 minutes to die (perhaps appropriate in their case). The electric chair is barabaric being a modern version of burning at the stake or boiling in oil, whilst the Gas Chamber takes too long using cyanide. (With their military expertise in this field, why dont the Yanks use an instant lethal nerve gas?). The Firing Squad is too uncertain in its immediate outcome sometimes a single shot to the head was required to finish off the subject and it was very traumatic for the soldiers forming the squad. The lethal injection, as used on Timothy Mc Veigh, seems to be reasonably quick, 3 minutes from start to finish, though again I believe that Barbiturate Thiopentone is far quicker. Perhaps the gullotine was as fast as a British Hanging but of course is very messy.

I make no apology whatsoever for my belief in Capital Punishment but know that there is no way it will be reintroduced in the UK under any of the viable political parties we have at present, even Thatcher didnt do so despite her much vaunted Right Wing stance, only one of her Home Secretaries, David Waddington, was right wing and in favour of hanging, the rest were dripping wets such as Douglas Hurd. She was only interested in Economic Toryism, on Law and Order she was a disaster.

So all in all one possible mistake in the UK in the 20 years from the end of the Second War to abolition in 1965. Weigh that up against the many people who have been killed by murderers freed after their first crime.

Finally, I raised my glass and cheered when I read that the silly old sod Longford has gone the way of all flesh. I only hope his friend Myra Hindley is not too long in joining him.

[ 05 August 2001: Message edited by: Tartan Gannet ]

5th Aug 2001, 14:41
Tartan, one or two more details about the Craig/Bentley case:-

a) Not all the police present on the roof at the time heard the "Let him have it, Chris" - and Bentley always denied having said it.

b) The policeman who was killed (his name escapes me) was, according to forensic evidence, killed by a "large bore round". Craig was waving a .38 revolver. The police marksmen on adjoining roofs had .45's. The ballistics expert subsequently said that he was never asked whether "large bore round" included .38, but had he been asked, would have said no - the killing was done by a .45 round.

c) Goddard's behaviour on the bench at the trial was extraordinary. On that alone there was sufficient grounds for a lifetime's worth of appeals - which is what Bentley didn't get.

tony draper
5th Aug 2001, 15:27
Between them Bentley and Craig were armed with two knuckle dusters, a sheath knife each and a hand gun, they went out with the intention of burgling those particular premises,and with the intention of resisting if they were caught, it wasn't a spur of the moment crime.
Causing death in the commision of a crime was murder and a hanging offence in those days, they should have strung up both of them, would have saved all this handwringing.
I suppose technicly it could be argued even if the officer had been accidently shot by another policeman,the direct cause of that was the crime being commited by those two, if they haddn't been there, and armed, the police would not have been there and armed.

Ps, I remember the hanging and that particular one,the kids in the school yard used to count down the seconds to nine oclock.
Contrary to what a lot of people who were not around then seem to think, hanging was not disaproved of or regarded with horror oby the general populus at the time.

[ 05 August 2001: Message edited by: tony draper ]

Tartan Gannet
5th Aug 2001, 17:07
H.M. Funny how everyone forgets the name of the victim in such cases, isnt it? For your information he was PC Sydney Miles and he certainly suffered an unjust Death Sentence on Sunday 2nd November 1952.

I agree Tony Draper, Derek Bentley was NOT the plaster saint that many portray him to be. He was a criminal thug armed as you have said with a knife and a knuckle duster. He certainly deserved a long and hard prison sentence for his crimes. My only concern with this one case was that there was a gap in time of about 15 minutes between the "Let him have it Chris!" remark and the subsequent shooting of PC Miles and in that time Bentley was in the hands of the Police having been apprehended . He was also of a low mental ability, what would have been termed dim-witted in the days before Political Correctness.

Lord Chief Justice Rayner Goddard was certainly renowned as a "Hanging Judge" a firm believer in both Captial and Corporal Punishment and the maxim that "Punishment must Punish!" a dictum I fully support as readers will know. There have been anecdotes since his death in 1971, of alleged "eccentric" behavior by him while on the Bench trying murder cases. As to whether these are true or fabrications I do not know. Would another Judge at that time have handed down a lesser sentence to Bentley, given the fact that the Death Penalty was still widely regarded as just and part of the fabric of our legal system nearly 50 years ago and that the concept of the joint culpability of members of a gang had been upheld in the case of the murder of Alec De Antiquis where both the killer Geraghty, and his accomplice in a robbery Jenkins were hanged in 1947 although only the former actually shot de Antiquis?

To my mind the only truly innocent person to die as a result of the Croydon Robbery was PC Miles, though I feel that Bentley's sentence should have been commuted to Life Imprisonment taking ALL the circumstances about the crime, AND THE MAN into account. My sorrow is that the REAL culprit, Christopher Craig, escaped the fitting sentence for his crime and is still around to this day. Its a pity he didnt break his neck or smash his skull when he jumped off the roof in an attempt to escape!

Tony Draper, you seem to hold similar opinions on many key subjects to myself and it is good to find a kindred spirt against all the "liberal intellectuals". ( I especially exclude H.M. from this as he has been up the sharp end in Ulster for Queen and Country). Perhaps this is because we have had to live life where its at, not in the hallowed halls of academe or the Ivory Towers of some University. If I am ever in "The Toon" I would like to meet you for a pint or several, likewise should you be in Reading or even in London at a mutually convenient time. All the best to you Tony

[ 05 August 2001: Message edited by: Tartan Gannet ]

5th Aug 2001, 21:15
If someone goes out and kills someone with the intention of doing so then bollocks to them, take them round the corner and shoot them. Why waste more money keeping them in prison, most of them have it easy anyway, playstations etc...kin joke :mad: :mad: :mad:

tony draper
5th Aug 2001, 22:32
Heh heh, indeed Mr G, I had noticed that, we could qualify for the old grumps in residence spot.
Hey your a braver man than I drinking in the toon , bloody awful place now, full of people that dress like they are the third act from Billy Smarts Circus,people belly up to the bar drinking beer out of the bottle forgods sake,()only down and outs in shop doorways did that in my day)what passes for music blasting out at Jerico Trumpet levels, even the quiet places they use twenty foot voices for two foot conversations.
Grummble grummble, young bloody whippersnappers, grummble grummble,,stick the bastards in the army, grummble grummble,
no respect. flog the buggers,heh heh.
Been teetotal for nearly twenty years now
Mr G, I think the demise of the pub made this easier on me,I used to love the English Pub, unique, nothing like them anywhere, home from home, each with its resident philosopher, historian, military expert,lady of easy virtue, sing song ten oclock on a saturday night, ahhh,my idea of heaven would be to spend eternity in a good old fashioned pub with the clock perminently at ten pm on a saturday night.
Never really missed the beer just that atmosphere. :)
Be glad to join you for a coffee though we could put the world to right in twenty minutes, you and I . :rolleyes:

[ 05 August 2001: Message edited by: tony draper ]

6th Aug 2001, 00:15
Absolutely yes, provided:

- There is absolute proof of guilt. (DNA evidence would suffice, so long as there is no other conceivable way the DNA could have got to wherever it was found)

- The crime is pre-meditated, and is a particularly nasty (murder, rape, etc.)

- The person concerned is likely to re-offend given the chance


6th Aug 2001, 07:52
Agree with you FFF except discard point 3.

You want it when?
6th Aug 2001, 13:14
This all makes sense to me. You lose the right to life if you offend - the punishment has to fit the crime (eye for an eye etc.. - rapist could be painfull).

Reasonable doubt before punishment - of course, but if the penalty is strict then the innocent will ensure that they are not in the way of the guilty (possibly naive I know).

All criminals should lose the protection of society, that is what prison is all about. They would make great organ farms in the extreme. Take away the TVs, distance learning, playstations, phonecards, gyms, fags etc.. The argument that loss of liberty is punishment enough, is not sufficient - take them totally out of society - prehaps for the last X months offenders could be re-integrated in some way, but I believe that the case of repeat offences would be reduced and first time offenders would have some grave reservations before they committed any act. Also (slightly off topic) prison time is mandatory for all offences - get caught, do time.

6th Aug 2001, 13:56
Slasher, reason for point 3 is that we all make mistakes from time to time. I pray that any mistake I make isn't so serious as to land me in jail, but if it is, I'd at least like to be able to do my time, then continue my life. Of course, this does not apply to serial offenders, who do not regret their actions, despite what they may say to their parole officer.

You Want It When - completely agree. Remember hearing about a jailbreak in the early part of the last century. Convict planned his escape, and had a friend on the outside leave a getaway car for him. The escape went according to plan, the convict found the car - but didn't get any further. He could not find the starter handle anywhere, and was totally confused. Of course, in the time he'd spent in jail, starter handles had been replaced by starter motors! Couldn't imagine this happening now, though - prisoners have access to so many resources they could probably build their own getaway car in the prison workshop!


6th Aug 2001, 19:40
I say hang the buggers, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime!

6th Aug 2001, 19:41
Doesn't the death penalty still exist for some offences in England and Wales? High treason, arson in a Naval dockyard(?!)and porking the wife of the heir to the throne spring to mind. Or is this an urban myth?

The arch-cad James Hewitt got away with the last one, but would an assassination attempt on the Monarch by a British citizen count as high treason?

Tartan Gannet
6th Aug 2001, 19:59
Brakes beer. Knowing the lilly livered governments of both colours we now have if the Monarch was to be assasinated and the culprit caught I seriously doubt that the Death Penalty would be imposed. All the Civil Liberties circus would be falling over themselves to defend the killer.

Execution for Arson in a Naval Dockyard was abolished some time back I think as was having carnal knowledge of the Sovereign's unmarried daughter. Remember back to when the Brighton Bombing took place in 1984. An attempt to kill the Prime Minister and Cabinet and deaths did occur yet the culprit received a derisory sentence and, correct me if I am wrong, is now free. :mad: :mad: :mad: