PDA

View Full Version : Death penalty for theft?


Halfbaked_Boy
2nd Mar 2013, 00:33
CCTV captures positive images, and there is no shadow of a doubt that the person in the dock is the perp. Proven by video/DNA, you get the gist.

Applicable to such crimes as theft, breaking and entering, assault, rape, etc...

Would it make for a better or a worse world? I'm trying to get right down to the lowest common denominator here... Deterrence. Clearly it's not currently enough because people are still committing such crimes hundreds of times a day on a daily basis.

On the flip side, what are the reasons for not implementing such a penalty? Fear of wrongful prosecution? Are there any others? Moral? In which case, an old phrase rings loud... An honest person has nothing to fear.

I'm not particularly swayed either way, I was reading a thread from another forum and thought it would be an interesting debate.

Loose rivets
2nd Mar 2013, 00:37
You can be as honest as the day is long, but in the real world there will be millions of people that can not feed their families.

Only a divine observer could make a valid judgement of such people.

Dushan
2nd Mar 2013, 00:37
Has it been two weeks already?

TWT
2nd Mar 2013, 00:39
Good idea.Then they can execute all the thieves that run our countries.

darkroomsource
2nd Mar 2013, 00:44
I heard a radio documentary on death row guards that brought an interesting point to light. A majority of those who've been involved in executions have later gone on to require years of therapy. Some have even broken down ending up institutionalized.

Slasher
2nd Mar 2013, 03:14
If some bloke robbed me blind I'd be ok having him locked up for 15 to 20, but I don't think
the crime deserves him losing his life to the State. If he robbed the fridge and nothing else
I'd say maybe 6 months. I've nothing against said hungry bloke but he could've come to me
first and earned it by doing some form of menial work - might've given him a few bucks too
on top of his dinner.

There is dignity in earning one's tucker by one's labor. There is none in just being a thieving
pr!ck. We rarely get the odd beggar around here but the ones we've encountered won't think
of asking for anything free without doing some kind of odd job - but that is the local culture.

Some my recall the Great Break In early last decade where I got my head bashed in with my
puter monitor by 2 Cambojans who broke into my joint intending to thieve everything. I hear
they are to be let out (with what must be very sore bungholes by now!) sometime this year.

ExXB
2nd Mar 2013, 06:56
Even with the most severe penalties I don't think they would work as a deterrence. In America, at the moment, many states have the death penalty for murder. If deterrence worked you would have no more murders in those states. But I don't believe you see significantly lower murder rates there.

People don't commit crimes thinking they will get caught. They believe they are smarter than the cops and they will get away with it. In such cases it doesn't matter what the penalty is.

I believe in California it was costing the state more than $1 million per inmate for the process between the arrest and the execution. Rarely took less than 10 years often took decades.

Some may say - take them from the court and shoot them out back. However my confidence in the court getting it right the first time is very low. Even with irrefutable evidence many convictions have been overturned.

Improve my confidence in the police, the forensic experts, the prosecution, the juries, the judges, and everyone else involved I might change my mind. But I don't think that's going to happen.

Choxolate
2nd Mar 2013, 06:59
I do not agree with the death penalty for any crime. I do not want to live in a country where the state has the legal right to kill me.

So no.

Tableview
2nd Mar 2013, 07:05
Death penalty for theft. No.

Death penalty for theft with violence resulting in severe injury or death. Yes.

My belief is that one of the reasons that the death penalty doesn't appear to be an effective deterrent in those states that have it is because the 'perps' know that there is a lengthy appeal process and that they will not be executed for many years, if ever. And of course as stated, they think they won't get caught.

The effectiveness or otherwise of the death penalty is unquantifiable. How would you measure it and get a meaningful result?

Murderers, drug dealers, rapists, kiddy fiddlers. Take them out the back and shoot them. Not as a punishment, just as a way of permanently removing them from society and ensuring that the likelihood of them re-offending is 0%.

Cacophonix
2nd Mar 2013, 07:11
Tableview

You! A proponent of the death penalty! Surely not?

As for being able to quantify (in a statistical sense anyway) the efficacy of the death penalty or not see the following debate...

22 British Journal of Criminology 1982 Ehrlich's Analysis of Deterrence - Methodological Strategy and Ethics in Isaac Ehrlich's Research and Writing on the Death Penalty as a Deterrent (http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/bjcrim22&div=14&id=&page)=

Caco

Mac the Knife
2nd Mar 2013, 07:15
For politicians certainly!

After all, doesn't it then amount to high treason?

Mac

:cool:

Solid Rust Twotter
2nd Mar 2013, 07:26
It should be compulsory for politicians.



However, I don't think it's a good idea for SA under the current yoke. The regime can't be trusted not to use it as a political tool to off their opponents, despite what many see as a desperate need for something to curb the insane levels of violent crime.

Tableview
2nd Mar 2013, 07:41
Indeed, Caco, I thought that might come as a big surprise to you.

The single page that is accessible through your link only states that one person's belief that each execution saves up to 8 lives has been discredited, but there are as many arguments for the death penalty as there are against it, and in the absence of any concrete proof with quantifiable proof, it comes down to subjective and personal opinions.

Even if executing one murderer only saves one innocent life, many people would argue that that is acceptable. In the case of mass murderers, it becomes even more justifiable.

The moral debate as to whether one person has the right to kill, or mandate the killing, of another person is the toughest part.

Cacophonix
2nd Mar 2013, 07:46
The moral debate as to whether one person has the right to kill, or mandate the killing, of another person is the toughest part.

I agree entirely with that Tableview.

Caco

gingernut
2nd Mar 2013, 08:08
Fundamentally, "taking" a life sit's uneasy wiht me.

Secondary to that, I don't trust the state/legal system.

stuckgear
2nd Mar 2013, 08:16
Death penalty for theft. No.

Death penalty for theft with violence resulting in severe injury or death. Yes.



can't disagree with that !

Fox3WheresMyBanana
2nd Mar 2013, 08:30
Anyone committing a crime should be moved to an open prison.
All open prisons are to be small, and located next to MP's family homes, business CEOs homes, etc.

Bet we'd see a rehabilitation program worth the title pretty sharpish after these changes

Hobo
2nd Mar 2013, 08:38
As William Donaldson said, death for theft even if they're innocent, a worse fate for the guilty.

(He also said the definition of an efficient police force is one that catches more criminals than it employs.)

gorter
2nd Mar 2013, 09:13
In my simple little head i see it like this. Mankind has had the death penalty probably since the beginning of any form of legal system. Yet it is still executing people (both the guilty and the innocent). If after let's say 6000 years plus people are still committing those crimes then we must infer the death penalty just isn't a deterrent!

gunbus
2nd Mar 2013, 09:20
I agree with Tableview

bluecode
2nd Mar 2013, 10:01
The best argument against the death penalty is that Norwegian mass murderer. It he was executed that would be that. Now he has to wake up every morning facing up to the fact that he is locked up forever and for him something worse. He's out of the spotlight. He's there in his cell right now and he'll be there tomorrow and tomorrow and on and on until he dies or kills himself. His life has ended as surely the kids he murdered. But he'll never have peace. Justice I think.

radeng
2nd Mar 2013, 10:15
I'd rather see lengthy prison terms in a no luxuries jail - no TV, special meals only for those with a medical condition requiring them, physical labour such as growing the vegetables etc. No letting them out half way through the sentence, and no excuse of 'right to family life' to prevent immediate deportation for foreign criminals on eventual release.

Many of the prison terms seem unduly lenient...

sitigeltfel
2nd Mar 2013, 10:22
Now he has to wake up every morning facing up to the fact that he is locked up forever and for him something worse.

How do you know that? There is every chance that he wakes every morning basking in the perverted glory of what he has done and relishing the adulation of those who subscribe to his brand of politics.
Removing him would stifle his oxygen of triumph and send a warning to others.
The Norwegian penal system provides that one day he may be set free to live his life. I do not call that punishment, more like a reward.

Sprogget
2nd Mar 2013, 10:43
What oxygen of triumph? That is entirely a confection of your own making.

God, the same people think in the same stilted, unenquiring way in here. It's like an intellectually slack Groundhog day. Years & Years I've wasted on this website only to see the same pillocks ineffectually spouting the same bullshit over & over again to no practical effect whatsoever. Usually expats too. Always the worst of the pack.

SpringHeeledJack
2nd Mar 2013, 10:43
I'd rather see lengthy prison terms in a no luxuries jail - no TV, special meals only for those with a medical condition requiring them, physical labour such as growing the vegetables etc. No letting them out half way through the sentence, and no excuse of 'right to family life' to prevent immediate deportation for foreign criminals on eventual release.

Many of the prison terms seem unduly lenient...

+1 :D

The whole system seems to have changed to the 'rights and benefits' of those incarcerated, which to me seems to have engendered a lessening of respect for societal rules by those of a criminal mind. Assuming that the prisoners are guilty, then their punishment must fit the crime to be a punishment and deterrent to other would-be's on the outside.



SHJ

sitigeltfel
2nd Mar 2013, 10:59
What oxygen of triumph? That is entirely a confection of your own making.

God, the same people think in the same stilted, unenquiring way in here. It's like an intellectually slack Groundhog day. Years & Years I've wasted on this website only to see the same pillocks ineffectually spouting the same bullshit over & over again to no practical effect whatsoever. Usually expats too. Always the worst of the pack.

It is called opinion. If you do not like it I'm sure you could find a haven where your own views will be welcomed without critique. You seem to be a jumped up, self important toad, who believes that everything you spout is sacrosanct.
I have news for you, that is not how the world that the rest of us inhabit works, but as long as you feel happy happy in yours, fine.

hellsbrink
2nd Mar 2013, 11:03
What oxygen of triumph? That is entirely a confection of your own making.

And saying the opposite is just as much fantasy as you have no idea how he feels every morning.

Let me put things this way. Breivik wakens up every morning, he has never shown the slightest hint of remorse and, in fact, has positively basked in the notoriety he has gained through the atrocity that he, and only he, carried out. He may even think, in his own twisted way, that nobody else could have carried out his "mission", nobody else could have gotten his message across.

Now, do you think he'll waken up and feel sorry for the loss of his liberty, that he'll feel remorse for killing all these people, or do you think it's more likely that he wakens up knowing that he is where he is because he succeeded in his aim, that he will bask in what he sees as the "glory" of becoming notorious for doing what he did? I know which one I would guess at, and it's not the one that bluecode says Breivik would feel because that is the way bluecode would feel IF he was in that situation.

You, sprogget, like others, simply DO NOT KNOW what Breivik feels, so you cannot possibly say that you are "right" and everyone who may think otherwise, especially if they are expats, are wrong. Not in this case.

stuckgear
2nd Mar 2013, 11:13
God, the same people think in the same stilted, unenquiring way in here. It's like an intellectually slack Groundhog day.
Years & Years I've wasted on this website only to see the same pillocks ineffectually spouting the same bullshit over & over again


indeed sprogget your perpetual bile for all things not in accord with your own view point is indeed boring, my intellectual heavyweight pub singer from Horley University.

you could of course stop 'delighting' us with your great intellectual presence and stop coming here and instead work on your Michael Bolton renditions instead.

you probably wont be missed for the intellectual discourse.


toodle pip.

cavortingcheetah
2nd Mar 2013, 11:26
Lest one be accused of thinking in the same stilted way, let it be said that the institution of Sharia Law in Britain is what is needed to instil in the masses a concept of respect for punishment, which is what deterrent is all about.
As an additional element of fun, games and agony, which represents a change of mindset, amputations would not be carried out under anaesthetic by a surgeon as is increasingly customary these days but would be administered by a suitable qualified executioner using a sharp scimitar. This would ensure maximum pain which might, in many cases of the alcoholic or drug addicted criminal, lead to death by shock, thereby fulfilling two conceptual elements of Pavlovian theory, one at least being terminal.
The Moors in Spain used to follow these procedures and Miriam Clegg is a Spaniard with a serious financial interest, or so it is rumoured, in encouraging the construction of Spanish windmills. One feels sure that she should approve of this extension of conflict of morality.

SpringHeeledJack
2nd Mar 2013, 11:35
Who knows what Brevik feels these days, but during his trial it seemed pretty unequivocal as to his thoughts and emotions. He seemed to feel that he was on a 'holy mission' almost like in the film 'Terminator' (though that involved time travel) to kill people that would in the future shape a country/society. For Brevik to see and experience the changing of a very conservative country in the last decade, albeit nothing compared to other European lands, was enough for his far-right leanings to be put into action. Although beyond the imaginings of most of us, he saw/sees himself as a freedom fighter and as we've all heard "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"......



SHJ

Lon More
2nd Mar 2013, 11:38
let it be said that the institution of Sharia Law in Britain is what is needed How can you see when a Muslim's appeal against a theft conviction has been upheld?
Scars around his wrists from the operation.

This (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1929920,00.html) U.S. sherrif has the right idea. Make prison as unattractive as possible. Unfortunately all it does is push the problem out to surrounding countries and makes the criminals more willing to take greater risks to avoid being caught.

cavortingcheetah
2nd Mar 2013, 11:58
All severed body parts to be cryogenically stored, or popped into the deep freeze, for six months after removal after which to be handed over to Findus for processing.

Slasher
2nd Mar 2013, 12:57
....after which to be handed over to Findus for processing.

Hey I don't want to find a rapist's dick in my horsemeat! :uhoh:

Flash2001
2nd Mar 2013, 13:24
Death for failure to keep election promises! The sentence could be carried out by any member of the public!

After an excellent landing etc...

hellsbrink
2nd Mar 2013, 14:07
Hey I don't want to find a rapist's dick in my horsemeat!

But you've no problem with putting a horse's d*** in your mouth?






Interesting..........

ExXB
2nd Mar 2013, 14:56
Death for failure to keep election promises! The sentence could be carried out by any member of the public!

Perhaps it would be more effective to apply the death penalty to those that believe election promises.

Anyone who wants to be in politics should be prevented for reasons of obvious insanity. A dictator should be appointed by a special computer program to determine the person who wants the job the least. A ten year sentence, oops sorry, ten year term to be mandated - with 5 years forgiven if they meet fixed objectives.

radeng
2nd Mar 2013, 15:08
Joe Arpaio goes a bit far when they get fed mouldy bread and rotten fruit - and no salt in an Arizona summer. Maybe that's part of the reason that $43 million damages have been awarded against the county....

Milo Minderbinder
2nd Mar 2013, 16:23
"A dictator should be appointed by a special computer program to determine the person who wants the job the least"
You've been reading Asimov again? That was one of his.......

As to Breivick. Who cares what he thinks? His thoughts are totally irrelevant. What matters is what the public, and especially the relatives of his victims think. He has negated any responsibility to him by the state. The only question should be economic: the best way to dispose of a piece of refuse. Is it better to bury it and let it slowly rot in isolation, or just simply a quick clean burn to eliminate it once and for all?

G-CPTN
2nd Mar 2013, 17:00
So far, prisoners who want to take their own lives have to 'make their own arrangements'.

What we need is volunteers for euthanasia by the state (under clinical conditions).

They could even elect to donate their bodies for medical science (surgeon practice).

I'm sure it could be arranged to be free from trauma, so a peaceful way out.

cavortingcheetah
2nd Mar 2013, 17:19
It's a dreadful nuisance contemplating a trip to China every time one wants a kidney transplant. Compulsory organ donations from condemned convicts in exchange for a final conjugal visit might be a start in alleviating the body part shortfall.

Krystal n chips
2nd Mar 2013, 17:32
These two entrepreneurs had a slightly different take on the suggestion above and also from G.CPTN....

Burke and Hare murders - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burke_and_Hare_murders)

More astute readers will note little has changed regarding the commercial opportunities the departure of Mr Burke offered.

ArthurR
2nd Mar 2013, 17:54
Death penalty for thieves first time no, bring back hard labour, use that, no radio, television, access to phones, certainly no computers, family visits earned. After you have served your sentence you are free, commit a crime again, then you have lost your right to freedom for life, how long your life lasts, depends on the crime, and that would only be for theft. Harder for other crimes.

cavortingcheetah
2nd Mar 2013, 18:38
One could perhaps regard Burke and Hare as transplant pioneers although possibly, had it existed at the time, they would hardly have qualified for the Nobel Prize.

con-pilot
2nd Mar 2013, 18:48
The death penalty for theft, no.

Now, on the subject of the death penalty for the taking of a another person's life, perhaps. A premeditated,well thought out murder, the punishment should be life without parole.

Now this is where I have a rather large problem with those that say no death penalty at all. They are ignoring that there is a basic flaw in some people's mind. These are the people that are multiple murders, those that have killed more than one person in unrelated murders.

Too many times a sentence of life, does not really mean for life. There are cases of where one that has been sentenced for life, are released in 15 years, hardly what one would consider a life sentence.

Even if a life sentence did actually mean that these multiple murders did in fact serve the rest of their lives in prison, that does not stop them from killing people. They just kill fellow prisoners. Prisoners that are serving time for no crime that justifies their death, whether by the state, or a fellow prisoner. After all, non-capital crime prisoners have the right to stay alive just as anyone else does.

The multiple murderer has no remorse, they have no emotional regret when they take another life. Killing a person means little or difference than killing a fly. One can say that their hobby is killing people. Thank God these people are very rare, but never the less they exist.

So when these people are caught, proven guilty without the slightest question of their guilt, by just sending them to prison, you are condemning another person to death. It could be another prisoner or a member of the prison staff, but they will kill again. That you can count on.

The mass murderer, such as Timothy McVeigh. Killed 168 people including 19 children age five and under. He showed no remorse, even calling the deaths of the children a 'sad but necessary collateral deaths'. He was proud of his act. So the theory of him waking up every morning while in prison, feeling sorry for himself and what he did, just doesn't work. He also stated that if he was released, he'd do such an act again.

Only the death penalty will stop these people from killing again. There is no other option, unless you want them to kill again.

Now I do believe that to be proven guilty of crimes that do call for the death penalty be extreme strict. There can be not the slightest shadow of doubt. The evidence against them must be totally overwhelming, including DNA proof of guilt.

I've looked into the eyes of some of these killers, including McVeigh, and they have no soul. All I could see in their eyes was death. They do not deserve to walk the Earth with the rest of us. Not even in prison.

radeng
2nd Mar 2013, 19:06
CC

Are the organs from a lot of these condemned convicts suitable for transplants? For instance, if they had been drug users or had aids or something else rather nasty?

That case last year springs to mind - the young woman gets a heart and lung transplant from a smoker and dies relatively soon from lung cancer.

Would they use my kidneys or heart? I've had minimal change kidney disease and am being regularly monitored as a result. Plus diabetes and atrial flutter. It could be that the cure would be worse than the disease......

Healthy, non-druggy convicts only, please......

radeng
2nd Mar 2013, 19:12
Meanwhile, Gloucestershire's finest are going to pay (or rather the council tax payers will pay)

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=Ms84WfJwalI&feature=pla%20yer_embedded>

Solid Rust Twotter
2nd Mar 2013, 19:45
A dictator should be appointed by a special computer program to determine the person who wants the job the least.


Bog off! Some of us have standards, you know...



Harrumph!:*

radeng
2nd Mar 2013, 21:11
Except maybe if the program automatically proposes SRT!

Davaar
2nd Mar 2013, 21:15
An honest person has nothing to fear.


Halfbaked, If ever an old phrase was utter baloney, there you have it.

There are, sadly, many cases to support me. For one there is the classic of Oscar Slater who spent eighteen years in Peterhead for a murder he did not commit If he had confessed and admitted guilt and penitence he would have been out in fifteen. As it was, they almost hanged him for the murder.

He was German, Jewish, resident in Scotland, and his significant other plied something of a trade on the streets. Well, I ask you! What more do you need?

Not only did the authorities nail him, but they destroyed the career and indeed the later life of the one honest senior member of the City of Glasgow police who maintained that Slater was innocent.

The whole tale is a sad stain,fo which all who work in it must be ashamed, as I am, on the history of policing and the administration of Justice in Scotland.

Lon More
2nd Mar 2013, 21:42
Yes, as through this world I've wandered
I've seen lots of funny men;
Some will rob you with a six-gun,
And some with a fountain pen.

And as through your life you travel,
Yes, as through your life you roam,
You won't never see an outlaw
Drive a family from their home.

Pretty Boy Floyd - Woody Guthrie

Sir George Cayley
2nd Mar 2013, 22:42
The theft of property used to be a capital offence. Grand Larceny (more than 1 shilling) and animals such as horses, sheep and cattle could result in a death penalty.

I've always found it interesting that crimes in the 20th C involving large sums of money carried lengthier terms than for stealing a life. Ask Bruce Reynolds - oh, you can't he's just died.

I'm old enough to know who James Hanratty was and by coincidence drove passed Bedford Gaol only recently. My recollection of the time was that Parliament made a compact with the people in as much as life meant life in place of execution.

I don't know if I imagined this or when that changed but the case where a convicted murderer is released to kill again shows how any consensus ad idem has somehow disappeared.

I'm firmly in the hang 'm high camp and would go back through prisons to erase a number of prisoners records starting with Ian Brady.

I would also support the notion of voluntary capital punishment a la Freds West & Shipman.

SGC

Solid Rust Twotter
3rd Mar 2013, 04:29
Except maybe if the program automatically proposes SRT!


In which case one will suddenly learn to fake an interest in the hope of being excluded. Would rather be called a deviant hamster molester than be associated with the shower of two faced thieving deceitful turd garglers in parliament.


Grump!

Worrals in the wilds
3rd Mar 2013, 04:50
I agree with you, con-pilot.

Slasher
3rd Mar 2013, 07:03
But you've no problem with putting a horse's d*** in your mouth?

Hey I never said I eat a Chinese Walmart diet mate!

Halfbaked_Boy
3rd Mar 2013, 11:14
Davaar,

Halfbaked, If ever an old phrase was utter baloney, there you have it.

Agreed, the use of that phrase has caused one to shoot oneself in one's foot, somewhat.

However, my original post is ridiculous enough as it is because to prove somebody guilty with no doubt whatsoever (short of every judge, jury and executioner witnessing the crime for themselves) is impossible.

Therefore an honest man will indeed always have something to fear!

The purpose of my post was to trigger some debate on a particular issue :)

radeng
3rd Mar 2013, 11:42
Another big payout.

Police officer who smashed into pensioner's car in line for 'six figure sum' after suing force - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9904541/Police-officer-who-smashed-into-pensioners-car-in-line-for-six-figure-sum-after-suing-force.html)

Considering how much he cost his employers in compensation, I would say that they would have been justified in sacking him.

tony draper
3rd Mar 2013, 12:38
During the time of the Bloody Assizes there were I think 170 crimes you could be hanged for,that's all wrong,we cant go back to that, we should have at least 300.
:rolleyes:

cavortingcheetah
3rd Mar 2013, 12:49
Imagine the quality of the body parts available then had organ transplants been in vogue.

radeng
3rd Mar 2013, 15:11
Hanging, drawing and quartering is likely to damage many body parts that you want for transplants. Probably Madame Guillotine is required to minimise damage.

Davaar
3rd Mar 2013, 18:09
to prove somebody guilty with no doubt whatsoever (short of every judge, jury and executioner witnessing the crime for themselves) is impossible.


Halfbaked! Agreed on this too, although it presses the criteria rather far. I'd leave it at judge and jury.

Too many former numskull partners are safely off to their great reward on the bench for me blindly to have much faith in the process. Mind you, others actually were bright and knowledgeable, believe it or not, and luckily had contributed to the right party at the material time.

When I was but a lad, I would think that "The Minister" or "His Lordship" had better access to the facts than I, and therefore KNEW MORE than simple me. Now I am older, know some in both classes, and no longer have that sutomatic respect. All are selected from genetic pools limited as to party, representation, and location.

A few minutes ago I was looking at some witness statements. But no more of that! It is to weep.

thing
3rd Mar 2013, 19:05
Sureley the answer (and one that would save zillions of quids) would be to bring people up in a society where they didn't want to commit any crime. It's we as a society that are failing somewhere, and don't ask me for the answers.

KAG
3rd Mar 2013, 19:10
I don't think a society, a country, a government have the right to kill its citizen after a judgment.
I would make them work. But nowadays when they work in jail, they have to be paid, and treated like workers with workers rights... yes, the politically correct is everywhere...

thing
3rd Mar 2013, 19:14
If we're not going to treat them as human beings, which for some of them might be the first time in their lives then how can you expect them to integrate into society when they leave? A society is judged on two things; how it treats it's elderly and how it treats it's prisoners.

james ozzie
3rd Mar 2013, 19:24
All justice systems have a scale of punishments, supposedly aligned to the severity of the crime. Murder is usually accepted as deserving of the most severe punishment. If you now introduce this sentence for "less severe"crimes, you merely encourage the criminal to kill the victim, so as to eliminate victim/complainant/evidence. In the case of armed robbery, this would result in an automatic shooting of the victim most times. Similarly for rape.

What is scary Ôs how in the old days the death sentence was applicable to less severe crimes, with the result that the more severe crimes attracted "enhanced" execution methods i.e. torture and slow deaths.

KAG
3rd Mar 2013, 19:33
If we're not going to treat them as human beingsWe don't put animals in jail.

ArthurR
3rd Mar 2013, 19:36
Ever been to a zoo KAG?

KAG
3rd Mar 2013, 19:40
A jail is no zoo. A jail is a jail.
Animals? We even cut them in little parts to study them. Look at the rats in the laboratories.

A society is judged on two things; how it treats it's elderly and how it treats it's prisoners. I hope one day will come we will judge a society on how it treats it's victims, not its criminals.

con-pilot
3rd Mar 2013, 19:47
If we're not going to treat them as human beings

Some are not human beings, at least not morally.

KAG
3rd Mar 2013, 19:52
ArthuR: it seems you misunderstand me: I don't mean jail is so crual that we don't put animals in, that's the opposite: jail is for humans, so criminals are treated like human beings, that was my points.

Animals? we kill them for any reason, to eat them to start with. Nothing to compare with a jail.

thing
3rd Mar 2013, 20:06
Some are not human beings, at least not morally.

What about the ones that are? And why not look at the ones who aren't in your opinion human and try and figure out what made them that way? So we can stop it happening to others?

I knew a prison chaplain who told me that the vast majority of people in jail are mentally ill and shouldn't be there in the first place. It's just a convenient pen to stick them in. He did say that some prisoners are just evil, but very few.

Which speaks volumes about us. Well it does IMO, maybe not yours.

con-pilot
3rd Mar 2013, 20:25
What about the ones that are?

If they are all that moral in the first place, what the hell are they doing in prison to start with?

The vast majority that are in prison, belong there. Just how many times can you let one rob people, assault others and steal from others, before you realise that some people just cannot exist in society peacefully?

galaxy flyer
3rd Mar 2013, 20:54
While I agree there needs to progression in punishments, for James ozzie's argument, at some number of felonies, a criminal should have his/her career in anti-social behavior ended with extreme prejudice. There are felons in the US with multiple dozens of serious, violent convictions. These folks are beyond any socilalization or rehab--the gallows and let God work it out.

I will say swift, sure punishment at lower levels might be a better deterrent or rehab mechanism than years spent on appeal, probation, and the like.

GF

thing
3rd Mar 2013, 21:30
If they are all that moral in the first place, what the hell are they doing in prison to start with?

Nice to see that Christian fellowship is alive and kicking in the good 'ol US.

Maybe they had a shit start in life? Misguided by drug addled parents? Something like that?

Everyone deserves another chance. I'm not saying they should have several other chances but everyone deserves another shot at trying to make something better of themselves, otherwise we've failed them.

How do you see corporate crime by the way? Non payment of taxes etc? Should they (the CEO's) be locked away? How about the banking system bringing the world to it's knees financially because of it's greed and corruption? Bit more of an impact than some street kid breaking into your car and stealing your stereo but hey, let's keep paying them their bonuses.

galaxy flyer
3rd Mar 2013, 21:40
No government has convicted any of the major bankers, the reason might be that THEY DIDN'T DO ANYTHING ILLEGAL. Non-payment of taxes, the vast majority of "white collar" crimes do not involve violence, very different story, one widely recognized. Violent criminals might deserve another chance, but not dozens. I believe in individual responsibility, free will, disabilities in life can be overcome, but acceptance of social norms and law is a basic requirement. Violent felons who show remorse, take moral responsibility, yes; hundreds of crimes, no.

GF

thing
3rd Mar 2013, 21:50
the reason might be that THEY DIDN'T DO ANYTHING ILLEGAL. Non-payment of taxes, the vast majority of "white collar" crimes do not involve violence,

Unbelievable really. So that makes it OK then. It's not illegal so there are no moral obligations. If it wasn't illegal to whack you around the head with an iron bar and steal your phone and wallet would that make it OK?

galaxy flyer
3rd Mar 2013, 22:36
But, that would be illegal.

I didn't say anything about moral, just what's legal. If the law, the law as written before the crime; it isn't criminal and can't be prosecuted. Loads of things are considered immoral, but there is no legal sanction. I don't think abortion is moral, but it legal in the US. Lying to my wife certainly can b considered immoral, but try prosecuting it.

GF

thing
3rd Mar 2013, 22:48
I was going to launch into a pro abortion rant there but I have to accept that our cultures are very different. Vive la difference and all that.

Davaar
3rd Mar 2013, 22:57
Sureley the answer (and one that would save zillions of quids) would be to bring people up in a society where they didn't want to commit any crime

There you have it, thing; and such a place existed.

The young Davaars used to holiday annually on the Island of Arran. No policeman troubled the insular peace, nor was there even, I think, a police station.

Every year, though, the heavy hand of the Law arrived seasonally to survey with due gravity and to certify the survey of the sheep-dipping. That done, the heavy hand disappeared until next season.

If one or more of us holidaymakers was out for a walk, and the day was warm, the solution was simple: take off a sweater or whatever until thermal comfort was reached.

Then deposit said garment(s) by the roadside and continue with the entertainment, secure in the knowledge that on return, there the garment would still rest. It always did.

I suppose, come to think of it, this is racist talk.

but try prosecuting it.

My dear galaxy, do you often push possibility to its limit?

thing
3rd Mar 2013, 23:06
Why racist?

Back in the early 70's my cousin in Lincolnshire lived in rather a remote village. I say village, it was four houses and a farm. He would ride his motorbike four miles to the nearest road where his works van would pick him up. He would park it up on it's stand at the side of the road and there it would be when he returned. It was always there. More importantly, it never occured to him that it wouldn't be there.

galaxy flyer
3rd Mar 2013, 23:34
I was going to launch into a pro abortion rant there but I have to accept that our cultures are very different. Vive la difference and all that.

That sounds about right for the east side of The Pond--kill the innocent, protect the guilty. Much like your economics, punish the productive, subsidize the slothful.

GF

Davaar
3rd Mar 2013, 23:40
That sounds about right for the east side of The Pond

Yes, galaxy. Indulge the moment and murder the product.

Davaar
3rd Mar 2013, 23:55
Why racist?



thing, racist by implication or inference, because the "natives" of Arran in the 1940s were and I suppose still may be, homogeneous in genetic pool (all Scottish, in that area meaning a blend of Celtic and Viking); homogeneous in religion (Christian, sub-division Presbyterian); and homogeneous in social outlook.

The greatest sinner I knew there was a minister of the church, whose parish I shall leave anonymous.

He had rather enjoyed golf, but some on the Session took exception to such a worldly passtime. Let him speak for himself:

"Aye! I wass opposed at ta start, but then I thought, maype they are right at that, maype they are. They are after aall Godly chentlemen. So I chust put away the sticks for ta gowff, and I pought a wee poat. It iss chust a wee poat. There can be nae herm in a wee poat. Our Lord had a wee poat tae.

I put away ta gowff, aall out off my mind, aaltogether, right away, so I do not miss it at aall.

I row out into ta Sound in my wee poat, with some tobacco and my pipe and a pox of matches, and it iss ferry quiet and peaceful, with chust me in ta poat and ta pipe and ta tobacco and ta matches and ta fish, an whiles I will catch a fish; and Ach! it iss not a trouble to ta Godly men, not at aall, for to be sure they canna see me in ta poat oot in ta Sound, nut a bit. Aye, so it iss."

Not a trace of multi-culti to be seen.

Ergo racist.

finfly1
4th Mar 2013, 00:01
Can't remember ever seeing racial homogenity (homonogenousness?) equated with racism before. Not convinced it is remotely the same thing.

Davaar
4th Mar 2013, 00:14
Not convinced it is remotely the same thing

Really! And why not?

Airborne Aircrew
4th Mar 2013, 00:59
Only a divine observer could make a valid judgement of such people

Not really... Only the victim can, truthfully, judge the damage.

KAG
4th Mar 2013, 03:18
What will never cease to amaze me is how much effort we do for the criminals, and how little we do for the victims.

We say they are not well treated, well it seems they are better treated than me when I was military in mission in Africa, I could go into details. Really. Why I should have risked my life for my country, lived in the desert, sometimes didn't really sleep for weeks because of the danger, didn't have a bathroom, was basically working 24 hours a day at times, but the guy who is a violent criminal back in France can have a confortable payed job, and have enough time to get a university diploma when in jailed then be admired by the society? WHY?
If you are a former criminal who studied in jail, wrote a book, you'll have fame for eternity, if you are like me, risking your life for your country (paratrooper, fireman) you'll be a nobody. This how our society works.

I think everything should revolve around the victim.
The criminal in jail should work for its victim, the salary should go to the victim.
A criminal should pay its debt, really has to do it. The priority should be to "rebuild" the victim, not the criminal. And I am talking mainly for violent criminals here, or the ones who attacked or stole from honest citizen (not mafia guys killing each other).
We shouldn't have a justice "one fit all" and put everybody at the same place.

We are spending so much money for the criminals and their jail, so little on the victims, and at the end the criminals in jail working can save their salary, and study!!! Nonsense.

The victim has to be offered a second chance, not the criminal. The criminal has to pay, then find that second chance himself.

hellsbrink
4th Mar 2013, 04:31
Welcome to the world of those who have an issue with the so-called Liberal Left, KAG, for that is the sort of thing that quite a few of us have been saying for some time......

Mac the Knife
4th Mar 2013, 05:37
Organ donation, that's the answer!

Take a life, donate a kidney.
Take another life, donate the other one.....

:E

thing
4th Mar 2013, 07:17
What will never cease to amaze me is how much effort we do for the criminals, and how little we do for the victims.

What about someone who robs a cash machine with a digger? No one else involved, no one else hurt. Where's the victim? How do you distinguish between victimless crime and other types of crime? Should they be seperated?

It's this 'one size fits all' depiction of criminality I have an issue with. A guy who nicks a bottle of milk off a doorstep (probably a rarity these days) on his way to work is the the same to some people as someone who has raped and murdered a child.

How many of you have taken a couple of pens home from the office or some sheets of printing paper? Is that OK?

I'm not a bleeding heart lefty by any means, I did 22 years in the mil and my views on how we should deal with workshy benefits scroungers would shock even the most right wing of you. Having been the victim of crime myself I understand that the rights of the victims get lost in the mire.

However it doesn't alter the fact that whatever we have done or are doing isn't working, otherwise they would be no prisons. It needs radical change. I'm not a psychologist so don't look to me for any answers but it's self evident to even the most feeble minded that the bandages aren't good enough.

thing
4th Mar 2013, 07:25
That sounds about right for the east side of The Pond--kill the innocent, protect the guilty. Much like your economics, punish the productive, subsidize the slothful.


Tell that to someone whos daughter gets raped, becomes pregnant and wants an abortion. As for economics, the last time I looked the US wasn't exactly flourishing.

Slasher
4th Mar 2013, 07:26
Organ donation, that's the answer!

Take a life, donate a kidney.
Take another life, donate the other one.....

Not a bad idea Mac - but take one kidney out first and leave the other one
so the crim can survive so as to harvest his other organs. After his second
murder, donate an eye. Third murder, the other eye. Fourth maybe a lung,
so on and so forth.

Don't forget there's also his arms, legs, feet, toes, fingers....

KAG
4th Mar 2013, 07:30
It's this 'one size fits all' depiction of criminality I have an issue with.Thing: I am the one who brought up the "one size fit all" thing, read again my post... and I agree, when there is no victims, the justice should adapt instead of giving to everybody basically the same sentence, only the duration varies.

I am speaking about criminals who caused victims (a large part of criminals are in this case), in this situation the victim should be at the center of everything, and should have his/her word to say. Any effort should be conducted toward the victim, not the criminal.

And no, I am not speaking about "Les Miserables" 2 centuries ago when somebody was forced to work sometime until death because he stole a piece of bread when hungry. we are not at the cinema here, but with real guilty criminals and real suffering victims.

Capetonian
4th Mar 2013, 07:47
What about someone who robs a cash machine with a digger? No one else involved, no one else hurt. Where's the victim? How do you distinguish between victimless crime and other types of crime?

It's not really a victimless crime. Victimless in the sense that nobody was injured or killed, I grant you that.

The potential for death or injury when someone intent on committing a crime drives round with a digger is fairly great, but even assuming that doesn't happen, the victims are the general public. Why?

You can bet your bottom dollar that the bank aren't going to cover the loss out of their own funds. It will be passed on and spread out amongst shareholders, insurers, and so on, and ultimately, rather like with insurance fraud, we all suffer.

So rather than saying it's 'victimless crime' you should be saying that the costs of the crimes are spread over a vast number of people on whom the effect individually is negligible.

To go back to KAG's point about the protection for the criminal rather than the victim, this unfortunately often the case. A couple of years ago the 14 year old niece of a friend was indecently assaulted by a known paedophile/pervert or whatever you want to call such people who was out 'on remand'. Fortunately for her it was unpleasant rather than serious and she suffered no physical harm, but she got half an hour with a WPC and the pervert got hours of counselling, cups of tea, free lunches and so on.

If my friend and I see him around one evening in a dark alley, he'll get a bit of private counselling from us too!

thing
4th Mar 2013, 12:08
To go back to KAG's point about the protection for the criminal rather than the victim, this unfortunately often the case. A couple of years ago the 14 year old niece of a friend was indecently assaulted by a known paedophile/pervert or whatever you want to call such people who was out 'on remand'. Fortunately for her it was unpleasant rather than serious and she suffered no physical harm, but she got half an hour with a WPC and the pervert got hours of counselling, cups of tea, free lunches and so on.

Close friend of mine was a policeman in my local town. He said they had to arrest a local guy who we both knew for seriously jumping up and down on the local perv who had been following his young daughter around. When I mentioned that I would have done the same he said 'Well so would I, but it's the third time he's done it, we let him off the first two times.'...:)

galaxy flyer
4th Mar 2013, 20:09
Thing

In your case, while I'm very sensitive to the victim and agree with first trimester abortion, to be the devil-- why are you advocating the death of the innocent? It's the rapist who should be executed.

GF

Dushan
4th Mar 2013, 21:05
What about someone who robs a cash machine with a digger? No one else involved, no one else hurt. Where's the victim? How do you distinguish between victimless crime and other types of crime? Should they be seperated?



Are you seriously trying to tell us that you do to see who the victim is in your example? Come back when you figure it out. Until then we cannot have a atonal discussion.

vulcanised
4th Mar 2013, 21:30
Proof reading required, Mr Dushan.

Dushan
4th Mar 2013, 22:25
Indeed, I blame the iPad, and the French, of course.