PDA

View Full Version : A topic especially for those who don't believe in the death penalty.


AlpineSkier
7th May 2013, 15:19
British man Geoffrey Portway admits plot to rape, murder and eat children in a dungeon beneath his US home - Americas - World - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/british-man-geoffrey-portway-admits-plotting-to-rape-murder-and-eat-children-in-a-dungeon-beneath-his-us-home-8606201.html)


British man Geoffrey Portway admits plotting to rape, murder and eat children in a dungeon beneath his US home

40-year-old's basement was equipped with a steel cage, a child-sized home-made coffin, scalpels, butchering kits, freezers and castration tools


This is probably one of the most unpleasant things I have ever read in a newspaper. Now my own personal view on this type of thing is probably known to regular JB'ers, but I would seriously like to ask those who would usually say "I oppose the death sentence ", if they would oppose it in this case.

I do understand that he has apparently done "nothing" other than equip a torture-room/prison and talk about his appalling desires/ambitions, but I would wish him put through a wood-chipper.....slowly.

The SSK
7th May 2013, 15:26
What would you propose?
Wait until he murders someone, and then kill him?
Or kill him before he's had a chance to murder someone, thereby saving a life?
Either way, you have one dead pervert, in option 2 you have one live child.

A nasty story about a nasty man, but it doesn't change my views on the death penalty.

rgbrock1
7th May 2013, 15:29
Alpine:

My preference to the death penalty has always been, and always will be: life imprisonment without any possibility of parole, spent in solitary confinement with no time away from that cell for anything i.e., no exercise, no TV, no books, no contact with any human being, no nothing. In essence: you slowly but surely go mad.

stuckgear
7th May 2013, 15:31
but I would wish him put through a wood-chipper.....slowly.


bollocks to that.. double tap to the cranium and throw him out with the trash..

or just dump him in the sea for the sharks.


fcuk him

hellsbrink
7th May 2013, 15:33
My preference to the death penalty has always been, and always will be: life imprisonment without any possibility of parole, spent in solitary confinement with no time away from that cell for anything i.e., no exercise, no TV, no books, no contact with any human being, no nothing. In essence: you slowly but surely go mad.

And my preference is the death penalty, and a hell of a lot sooner than gawd-knows-how-many years of appeals.

Why should the taxpayer be paying to ensure that those who have committed crimes serious enough to warrant execution have a better and longer life than their victims?

ShyTorque
7th May 2013, 15:33
In essence: you slowly but surely go mad.

I'd say he was mad already.

rgbrock1
7th May 2013, 15:35
SkyTorque:

Yes, it's obvious he's already mad. So it shouldn't bother him too much to spend the remainder of his days... with his mad self.

G-CPTN
7th May 2013, 15:37
Didn't they drop prisoners into underground chambers in medieval times?

They could allow friends and family to visit and drop food . . .

AlpineSkier
7th May 2013, 15:38
SSK

I really did start this thread because I would like to know:

a) How many people say " No death-penalty under any circumstances " and
b) How many might say, in light of this man's avowed intent "Kill him although I am normally against the death penalty "

Since you ask me the question "What do you propose " then. truthfully I would go with the wood-chipper for his current utterances which obvously extends the bounds of the death-sentence, but my opinion is that it is justified.

crippen
7th May 2013, 15:44
There will be a 'do gooder' along shortly to tell us he just needs a bit of counselling and he will be ok.

My own suggestions would only result in joining Slasher and Milo(?)in the sin bin.

The SSK
7th May 2013, 15:45
And then you have Hellsbrink saying

crimes serious enough to warrant execution

And which might they be? Hellsbrink's own personal list? Yours? Nigel Farage's? (oops, wrong thread)

AlpineSkier
7th May 2013, 15:45
SSK

I have answered your question so please answer mine.

This POS has said his ambition is to kidnap, rape, kill and eat a child. Would you wait until he has committed an offense before tackling him ?

Having said that, not being anything to do with justice, I don't know which charges have been brought against him and if in GB or Belgium, the publicised intent is a criime.

The SSK. What were your feelings about Dutroux ?

Capetonian
7th May 2013, 15:51
If the choices are simply :
a) How many people say " No death-penalty under any circumstances "
or
b) How many might say, in light of this man's avowed intent "Kill him although I am normally against the death penalty "

Mine would be b.

However, I am not normally against the death penalty for crimes of extreme violence, serious sexual crimes against children, drug peddling and crimes of that nature. As always, the definitions of 'serious' are grey areas. In the case of this guy, the death penalty carried out humanely is too quick and too kind.

Here's another case were these three probably deserve permanent removal from society :

Police visited house in Cleveland, Ohio, where three missing women were captive - and confirm baby found at scene as daughter of Amanda Berry - Americas - World - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/police-visited-house-in-cleveland-ohio-where-three-missing-women-were-captive--and-confirm-baby-found-at-scene-as-daughter-of-amanda-berry-8605381.html)

I heard an interview with one of the police involved, who said : "This was one of the most heartrending cases I have ever dealt with. Even hardened law enforcement professionals cry."

dazdaz1
7th May 2013, 15:53
"40-year-old's basement was equipped with a steel cage, a child-sized home-made coffin, scalpels, butchering kits, freezers and castration tools.

Sounds like a good week-end in Vagas:ok:

The SSK
7th May 2013, 15:56
Dutroux was an evil man, so was Andras Pandy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A1s_P%C3%A1ndy), so was Brady, so were the Wests ...

I was happy to read of Fred West's suicide, it's pretty much a sign of unbearable torment. I was happy to read of Hindley's demise, I hope Dutroux and Brady die in prison, whether sooner or later I'm not particularly bothered.

But I don't support the death penalty.

hellsbrink
7th May 2013, 16:06
And which might they be? Hellsbrink's own personal list?

Gee, wouldn't they be the very crimes that the laws of certain countries say warrant execution? You know, like first degree homicide (that's murder, if you want to be fussy, where the intent has been proven), child rape, terrorism, etc? The very laws that are on these statute books which say that execution is an acceptable "punishment" for being guilty of these crimes?

It's not difficult to figure it out, especially as I thought you were above the level that your post shows........

funfly
7th May 2013, 16:11
I don't think you should make a decision on something like the death penalty (which I disagree with) which will effect many many offenders based on one individual who exhibits characteristics that are inhuman. It's called a 'knee jerk' reaction.
I also don't like the 'confine them to one cell' reaction. Lock them away by all means, give them exercise and relative comfort and perhaps get them to contribute to the society that is supporting them by some sort of work.
This is what makes us 'civilised' and I would contribute to that.
To those who advocate 'Like for like' this simply degrades your own character to that of the offender. Those who proclaim "hang him, cut him to little pieces" are illustrating characteristics similar to his.

AlpineSkier
7th May 2013, 16:11
Well I hadn't read about Prady, but I would put him in with others. I feel they should be killed but in a horrific way which punishes them/revenges the victims/creates hideous suffering for them. Possibly there might be a small dissuasive effect for others .

The SSK
7th May 2013, 16:12
Hellsbrink: and if your country, and all the countries surrounding it, have no crimes on the books for which capital punishment is mandated, then ....

For European countries to reestablish a death penalty, somebody has to sit down and, using value judgements, come up with a list of the appropriate crimes. The very worst might be easy to come up with, it's where you draw the dividing line that is the difficult bit.

And AlpineSkier: as for the 'put them to death with horrible suffering', why not bring back hanging, drawing and quartering (with a bit of torture for hors d'euvre)? Yes, that would really put the stamp of civilisation on us, wouldn't it?

wings folded
7th May 2013, 16:12
People who kill other people are contemptible.

States/nations who do so are no different.

grumbles69
7th May 2013, 16:18
AlpineSkier

Wood chipper sounds reasonable to me. Obviously before he got the chance to commit the crime.
Hopefully a fellow prisoner will administer some correct justice before he completes his sentence and is deported over to Blighty where he will probably be given a house, car and re-integration into society course!

AlpineSkier
7th May 2013, 16:22
I also don't like the 'confine them to one cell' reaction. Lock them away by all means, give them exercise and relative comfort and perhaps get them to contribute to the society that is supporting them by some sort of work.

Sometimes I have to ask how many light-years my planet is from those I am conversing with. As far as I am concerned , the only reason to bring killers together for exercise , would be to flood the area with butane and ignite the ****ers. After that they could be cremated for energy-gain.

I believe I am civilised "funfly" and I don't believe that killing murderers makes me less so. My anger is such about this kind of thing that I reiterate my belief that scum like that which prompted my original post should be eliminated/ tortured as much as you like.

AlpineSkier
7th May 2013, 16:28
wings folded

I find your post both useless and pathetic.

If you would both read and reply to my original post, maybe we could have a dialogue, otherwise find somewhere else for your habitual and ritual comments

SSK
]

And AlpineSkier: as for the 'put them to death with horrible suffering', why not bring back hanging, drawing and quartering (with a bit of torture for hors d'euvre)? Yes, that would really put the stamp of civilisation on us, wouldn't it?

Would happily see lots of murderers either fed into the furnace or tossed into the river in a sack.

Capetonian
7th May 2013, 16:29
Why is it that the safety and security of the majority (decent law-abiding people) are subjugated by political correctness and leftism to pander to the well-being of violent criminals, terrorists, preachers of hate, and so on?

I would rather see one suspected terrorist dead than 100 innocent people killed in an act of terrorism.

Why keep people such as the object of the original posting alive in prison, at the expense of the tax payer, at risk of escaping, at risk of injuring or killing those around him, when he can be permanently and easily removed from society at minimal cost? Stuff the trials and re-trials and appeals. He's condemned himself.

Apart from vengeance, I see little point in making them suffer, tempting as it may be. Maybe just for a short while, then ........ zapp ......... gone.

It would act as a deterrent.

hellsbrink
7th May 2013, 16:30
Hellsbrink: and if your country, and all the countries surrounding it, have no crimes on the books for which capital punishment is mandated, then ....

And since it was clear by the words I used that I was talking about countries who do carry out executions, like the USA which is actually the country at the heart of the subject of this thread, a country where they do think that some crimes are serious enough to WARRANT execution, why would I be talking about Belgium which is a country which does not have capital punishment on the statute books any more?

And since most countries have actually had a form of capital punishment in the past, it wouldn't be hard to get your "base" of crimes from that and then you can quite easily define when a crime is heinous enough to warrant execution.

As has been said before, predatory paedophiles/hebephiles, homicide whilst committing a crime, pre-meditated homicide, terrorism. All are on statute books, all are examples which could be used, all also have both mitigating and aggravating factors which can be considered and these are on statute books as well.

Again, it's not difficult to decide, no matter what the lily-livers like to say.

vulcanised
7th May 2013, 16:43
He's just a poor little lamb who has lost his way.














String him up before he does real harm.

wings folded
7th May 2013, 16:52
I find your post both useless and pathetic.

If you would both read and reply to my original post, maybe we could have a dialogue, otherwise find somewhere else for your habitual and ritual comments
So my response does not fit your model. Tough, not everyone agrees with you.

I did read your post. Your arrogance knows no bounds. I will express my views which you qualify as "habitual and ritual" as if that were defective. They are views.

And yet you feel able to express what you wish in the assumption that you are correct. You may not be.

It is of no interest for me to have a dialogue with you because you will only agree with those who agree with you.

You are wrong on other topics also, but I am bored with you so I will not bother.

Consistency is a virtue.

AlpineSkier
7th May 2013, 17:05
If any posters who are generally opposed to the death-penalty for any reason would like to expanmd on why this person is deserving of all death-punishments. perhaps they could say why ?

lomapaseo
7th May 2013, 17:09
I really did start this thread because I would like to know:

a) How many people say " No death-penalty under any circumstances " and
b) How many might say, in light of this man's avowed intent "Kill him although I am normally against the death penalty "

Given the subject identified in the first post, I wold want to know more before I decided.

I can't conclude his avowed intent from the description. maybe he was just practicing on killing cats.

Regardless of any perceived intent, if he's muslim then kill him anyway.

redsnail
7th May 2013, 17:13
This is an interesting case.

Has he committed a crime or was he stopped before?
(Don't get me wrong, very glad he has not committed the crime!).

Obviously he's a bit different from what the norms of the society he lives in dictate. I am sure many psychiatrists will have a look to determine if he's criminally insane, psychotic or just plain weird.
My very rudimentary test is "would the person in question commit this crime with a policeman present?"

If yes. Off he goes to a secure psychiatric prison to be never released.

If no. Now we know he knows the difference between right and wrong.

Off to prison, never to be released or have access to the public. Therefore, no day release, no prison farms etc. The reason for this is he appears to have no desire to kill adults, therefore, they are not a risk to him. Children are. Thus, keep him away from his intended targets.

I am "on the fence" with respect to the death penalty. Don't get me wrong, I am no lefty hand wringing liberal. One of my pet hates is segregating prisoners from fear of attack from other prisoners. "If you do the crime, do the time". In particular paedophiles etc, why should society protect them when they chose to prey on much weaker individuals?

AlpineSkier
7th May 2013, 17:16
@wings folded


And yet you feel able to express what you wish in the assumption that you are correct. You may not be.

Please , no ! You don't really mean I might be wrong, do you ?


It is of no interest for me to have a dialogue with you because you will only agree with those who agree with you.

Oh, but Sir, this is so awful with you retreating into the Officers Club - what would they have done in 1942 ?


You are wrong on other topics also, but I am bored with you so I will not bother.

Oh Hell

How can I withstand this mortification. Pleas God, let it end !!!

rgbrock1
7th May 2013, 17:20
loma wrote:

Regardless of any perceived intent, if he's muslim then kill him anyway.

Thanks for that, loma, my lunch is all over my monitor now!!

Saintsman
7th May 2013, 18:00
If he wants to eat children, then it's his human right...

chksix
7th May 2013, 18:16
My feelings side with Alpine and Cape in this case :cool:

wings folded
7th May 2013, 18:52
And yet you feel able to express what you wish in the assumption that you are correct. You may not be Please , no ! You don't really mean I might be wrong, do you ?

Yes. Often.

PTT
7th May 2013, 19:07
hellsbrink said earlier "my preference is the death penalty, and a hell of a lot sooner than gawd-knows-how-many years of appeals."
Personally, I find myself against this, and against liberal use of the death penalty in general. The judicial system is far from perfect, and we can't actually know how good it is, since the majority of cases aren't certain; I'm defining "certain" here as "caught red-handed". In those situations there is always the possibility of a flaw in the prosecution case coming to light at some point.
That said, the threat of the death penalty may have some deterrent effect with some people. To that end I believe it should be an option, but only for certain crimes and only in those cases where the individual is caught red-handed.

In the case referenced, I don't believe the death penalty is warranted. He hadn't actually committed the crime he was intending to, afaik. Were he caught mid-meal, or perhaps with identifiable human (not his own) DNA in his gut, then I would consider that "red-handed", thereby making the death penalty an option.

rgbrock1
7th May 2013, 19:16
PTT wrote:

That said, the threat of the death penalty may have some deterrent effect with some people.

Very few people in my opinion. I'm quite sure that those who deserve death as the ultimate punishment couldn't give a rat's ass about that when they perpetrate their crime(s).

Capetonian
7th May 2013, 19:19
Tia Sharp
Hazell........... had a sexual attraction for the 12 year-old, jurors at the Old Bailey were told.

Prosecutor Andrew Edis QC said that a sex toy with Tia's blood on it was found at her grandmother's house after she died.

He said: "The prosecution case is that Stuart Hazell had a sexual attraction for Tia Sharp, that there was some form of sexual assault, something of that kind, and that was the reason he killed her."

April Jones
Jurors in the April Jones murder case looked shaken and upset today after visiting the house where traces of her blood and fragments of a child skull were discovered.

It is beyond me that there are people who think that the lowlife who commit such crimes should be allowed to continue to live amongst the rest of us. They should be removed, permanently, from society.

rgbrock1
7th May 2013, 19:24
Capetonian wrote:

It is beyond me that there are people who think that the lowlife who commit such crimes should be allowed to continue to live amongst the rest of us. They should be removed, permanently, from society.

But if we execute them how, then, are they made to suffer for their crimes? When you're dead, you're dead and don't know shit from schnazola. People like this deserve to be punished for the remainder of their days for crimes of this nature. Not executed and be done with it. That's too quick for these lowlifes. Make them suffer like their victims. Make them stay with themselves, locked up and alone for the rest of their lives. Never to see the outside world again. Lost in their own evil beings.

Capetonian
7th May 2013, 19:38
RGB, yes, to a point I agree with you but I'm not convinced that making them suffer serves any purpose other than revenge, the value of which is questionable. I'm not saying revenge is a bad thing and it may well be positive in giving the families of victims some closure, but then there may be others who would be uncomfortable with that. You suggest : " Make them stay with themselves, locked up and alone for the rest of their lives." but doing so is at huge cost to the state, and a risk to many people.

It may be a greater deterrent than immediate execution. Or it may not - we will never know.

That is why, on balance, I believe in just ending their lives, and not necessarily in a humane way, but that creates its own paradox for as others have said, we risk descending to their level if we 'hang draw and quarter' them.

rgbrock1
7th May 2013, 19:44
Capetonian wrote:

I'm not convinced that making them suffer serves any purpose other than revenge, the value of which is questionable

And executing someone for their crimes is not a matter of revenge?

As for the cost of keeping someone locked up for the rest of their lives? Doesn't cost much to purchase bread and supply water. :}

Checkboard
7th May 2013, 19:45
Killing people is wrong.
Killing people is right, if you do it for the right reasons.


Choose option 1 = place people in prison.

Choose option 2 = now you are have an argument about what is a "right reason" to separate you from the criminals. It's a pretty thin line.

Capetonian
7th May 2013, 19:51
And executing someone for their crimes is not a matter of revenge?
Not purely revenge, it serves a practical purpose of removing them from the earth and from the gene pool.

As for the cost of keeping someone locked up for the rest of their lives? Doesn't cost much to purchase bread and supply water
No, it doesn't, but there is a cost to building and maintaining prisons and the appropriate security personnel and mechanisms. There is the risk that they will escape, or run amok and kill or injure other people.

Checkboard
7th May 2013, 19:59
If you're going to knock people off for homicide, in the USA alone you are going to have to set up a system which can kill 16,000 per year. That's before you add in other crimes mentioned in this thread.

AtomKraft
7th May 2013, 20:00
If I read the OP right, this nut case was getting ready to do crimes. Is that right?

And some want him executed for it? Hmmmm.:hmm:

So, let's say he was just thinking about it seriously. Death penalty?

Let's say it crossed his mind. Death penalty?

Let's say he fantasised about it infrequently. Death penalty?

FFS we don't even apply the death penalty here if he actually DID the crime!

But my point is, when is he guilty?

When he does it? (Yup).
When he gets ready to do it? (I think guilty, but of a lesser crime).
When it first crosses his mind to do it? (Nope!)

Mr Chips
7th May 2013, 20:04
I gotta be honest, I'm torn by this one too...

Death penalty in general...yes, there are often cases where my thoughts are "string him up" with (I guess) the caveat of they have to be 100% definitely guilty. But is it punishment, removal from the gene pool or simply revenge?

Maybe we should study them instead. Yes, you can use scalpels and skull saws! But seriously, would we learn more from studying them?

Obviously this with a sentence of life meaning life as well...

But this case....he is clearly a sick twisted individual, really not keen on having him live on the same planet as me or my god children....but....

He hasn't actually done anything yet.

So maybe we can't execute him...but I nominate him for the study.......

Alpine - you have started a truly good thread here!

SASless
7th May 2013, 20:07
As the Anti-Gun folks tell us...."If it saves the life of even one single Child...it is worth it!".

In this case I fully concur....and as Alpine first noted about the Wood Chipper.....I would suggest "Feet First"!

garp
7th May 2013, 20:15
As the Anti-Gun folks tell us...."If it saves the life of even one single Child...it is worth it!".

In this case I fully concur....and as Alpine first noted about the Wood Chipper.....I would suggest "Feet First"! What happened to artistic freedom? :E

http://i42.tinypic.com/4vk110.png

Checkboard
7th May 2013, 20:24
As the Anti-Gun folks tell us...."If it saves the life of even one single Child...it is worth it!".
Why is this guy's life worth less than some child's? I have known some pretty terrible kids ...

PTT
7th May 2013, 21:40
@ rgbrock1Very few people in my opinion. I'm quite sure that those who deserve death as the ultimate punishment couldn't give a rat's ass about that when they perpetrate their crime(s).If "very few" is enough to save a few innocent people then it's justified.

AlpineSkier
7th May 2013, 21:46
SASless


In this case I fully concur....and as Alpine first noted about the Wood Chipper.....I would suggest "Feet First"!

It didn't occur to me that that would be be up for discussion.

00
AtomKraft If I read the OP right, this nut case was getting ready to do crimes. Is that right?

And some want him executed for it? Hmmmm.

So, let's say he was just thinking about it seriously. Death penalty?

Let's say it crossed his mind. Death penalty?

Let's say he fantasised about it infrequently. Death penalty?

FFS we don't even apply the death penalty here if he actually DID the crime!

But my point is, when is he guilty?



Yes , AK . I am saying that when someone has extended conversations about kidnapping, raping, killing and eating a child ( or anyone ) and constructs a structure to facilitate that, then I believe that person should be ripped out of the society they are in and killed in a fashion that may possibly have a deterrent effect on other sociopaths.

Mr Chips


He hasn't actually done anything yet.

So maybe we can't execute him...but I nominate him for the study.....

As far as I am concerned he has done enough to be executed in a way to possibly deter others. **** the "cruel and unusual " punishment restrictions.

Mr Chips
7th May 2013, 21:49
But Alpine...what if he is just a fantasist? Are we getting into the realms of "Minority Report"?

Ok, I admit he was a fantasist who was good at making stuff.....

The SSK
7th May 2013, 21:51
So now you're put to death, not for murder, rape or cannibalism but for having an extended conversation. Wow

AlpineSkier
7th May 2013, 21:56
Sorry Mr Chips, I don't know the film. I am saying that someone who follows through on this fantasy to the extent of building the torture-chamber should be killed as I imagine that ( my wild guess ) three out of four will carry through to using it and I don't care about number four who just stops short.

AlpineSkier
7th May 2013, 21:59
The SSK

Please tell me if you believe there should be any punishment for extended . detailed discussions about kidnap, rape, murder and canibalism as well as making preparations for these acts and what - if any - these punishments should be.

Mr Chips
7th May 2013, 22:00
Tom Cruise film in which crimes are predicted so people are caught before committing them...

So now you want to not only arrest him because he "might" do something horrific, but actually kill him because he might...

I purposely say horrific because I think it very relevant...

I'm honestly not sure of my opinion...very emotive!

The SSK
7th May 2013, 22:03
Give up, AS, youre making a fool of yourself. You would kill another human on the strength of your 'wild guess'.

That's about as good an argument against the death penalty as you'll get.

Lonewolf_50
7th May 2013, 22:07
If he hasn't killed anyone yet, I don't think there's a law on the books in the US that puts him to death. That leaves you, in the US, having to deal with him via something other than the death penalty. Here, it takes conviction of a particular kind of crime (not just any homicide, there are degrees) to get that sentence.

He seems to be a sick puppy and at present a danger to others.

Granted, one way to resolve this unofficially is to ensure that he's standing on a Manhattan subway platform. Sometimes, a push happens ... but that's not a formal way for dealing with this sort of abberation.

The mental health profession has to figure out how to deal with a 40 year old brain that has developed with this as a desire.

Go earn your money, shrinks. Saving someone's life is worth your best effort.

... this guy didn't only talk about this, but said that he wanted to carry out the acts.

Not sure if that warrants a 'conspiracy to commit' charge.

AlpineSkier
7th May 2013, 22:07
SSK

Please don't forget that according to the argticle this guy didn't only talk about this, but said that he wanted to carry out the acts.

I am making a fool of myself. Really ? :eek::eek:

Is Belgium becoming even more of a mad, useless, blank space on the map ?

Lonewolf_50
7th May 2013, 22:11
Is Belgium becoming even more of a mad, useless, blank space on the map ?
Was it ever something else? :E

con-pilot
7th May 2013, 22:15
If he hasn't killed anyone yet, I don't think there's a law on the books in the US that puts him to death.

There is no such law. So you are correct.

G-AWZK
7th May 2013, 22:17
**** the "cruel and unusual " punishment restrictions.

So Alpine Skier has spoken at length about killing and torturing people who think about possibly committing a crime.

Sounds like we should have Alpine Skier committed for removal from the gene pool.

I have spoken many a time of having sex with Nicole Sherzinger, it is however just a fantasy. Does that make me a rapist that should be locked up just for Thought Crimes?

You know, you sound rather like a political movement that gained some support in the mid 20th century. It didn't end well for them.

AlpineSkier
7th May 2013, 22:18
Lonewolf

In my professional lifetime, either 90 minutes of boredom driving through or days of discussion with self-important , self-obsessed ,useless Euro-wankers.

The SSK
7th May 2013, 22:18
Is Belgium becoming even more of a mad, useless, blank space on the map ?

Utterly pointless descending to insults of that kind. *shrug*

G-AWZK
7th May 2013, 22:21
discussion with self-important , self-obsessed ,useless Euro-wankers.mirror mirror on the wall....

AtomKraft
7th May 2013, 22:28
Alpine.

Ye canny kill folks for thinking or talking or saying- that they're going to do stuff.

You said earlier that:

'this guy didn't only talk about this, but said he wanted to carry out the acts'.

You need to proof read your own copy Alpine. 'Talking' and 'saying' are the same thing! ;)

Seriously though folks, ye can't convict someone of murder til they murder.

I know it's inconvenient, but suck it up.

God: Save us from Rednecks! :rolleyes:

Lonewolf_50
7th May 2013, 22:39
Lonewolf

In my professional lifetime, either 90 minutes of boredom driving through or days of discussion with self-important , self-obsessed ,useless Euro-wankers.
It took me a while to parse this as an answer to "what is Belgium other than a wasted space on the map?"

I chuckled.

To be fair, how about a little love for some decent beer, some decent chocolate, little boys pissing all over the place, and for perfecting the art of the French fried potato?

God: save us from rednecks.
Atom, I don't understand how rednecks figures into this discussion of AlpineSkier's curious topic. You seem to have a real hang up with the Order of the Crimson Nape.

Did one of them steal your lunch money when you were a kid? :confused:

AlpineSkier
7th May 2013, 22:40
GAWKZ

It is interesting to consider punishment and justice. At what point does punishment become vengeance and when should it be outlawed, if allowed at all ?

Since you allude to the time, I have visited a number of Nazi concentation-camps because I have both spent a long time living in Germany and have a deep interest in 20th century European history which has been immensely influenced by wars and aggression.

Visits to camps like Mauthausen, Dachau and Buchenwald have left me in tears of despair, anger and rage and may have contributed to my comments and feelings now.

I feel that the person involved in this case should be killed. He no longer has any right to exist.

You may have a different opinion.


EDIT : I do understand the controversial concept of national judicial justice ( as the Nazi "justice" was ) but believe in over-reaching honest/natural justice.

Lonewolf_50
7th May 2013, 22:44
I have spoken many a time of having sex with Nicole Sherzinger, it is however just a fantasy
I just looked up a few pics, as not familiar with the lady.

Wow!

Aim high! :ok::D

Capetonian
7th May 2013, 22:47
He has admitted plotting to rape, murder and eat children in a dungeon beneath his US home and hard evidence exists of his intention and ability to do so.

Yet some of you would rather wait until he actually commits such an act before taking action.

I feel that the person involved in this case should be killed. He no longer has any right to exist. +1

svhar
7th May 2013, 22:49
Evidence, including DNA can be, and have been plantet or mixed up.

Blackstone's formulation in criminal law: "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"

G-AWZK
7th May 2013, 22:52
I feel that the person involved in this case should be killed. He no longer has any right to exist.How ironic you learned nothing from your visits to concentration camps.

You have said you wish to kill this person, how exactly does this make you any different from that person?

You wish to kill people to remove them from your version of society because they are somewhat <ahem> unusual. Yes, based on *your* interpretation of events this person does sound like a danger to society, however, how society deals with aberrations like this is what separates us from tyrants or anarchy.

The SSK
7th May 2013, 22:55
Yet some of you would rather wait until he actually commits such an act before taking action.

Oh, how wrong, Capetonian.

He should be locked up, for a very long time. And while he is locked up, the necessary assessments should be made as to whether he should ever be able to walk free. But put to death? For what crime? Thinking bad thoughts?

Cacophonix
7th May 2013, 22:57
Capetonian, do you believe that Mandela should have been hanged?. I am looking forward to his 95 birthday but don't let that get in the way of your righteousness.

Caco

Cacophonix
7th May 2013, 23:00
As somebody once said... "you can blow hard only once...".

Caco

AlpineSkier
7th May 2013, 23:11
.
How ironic you learned nothing from your visits to concentration camps

You are wrong in at least one aspect , although you couldn't know it, as the sole reason why I visited Buchenwald was to see how the history of the camps was displayed under Soviet-rule (pre 1989 ) vs Western conditions. That apart I have to say that I was devastated as an ordinary Western citizen by what I read and saw.

I understand the "how can you kill " argument, but believe that my "rationale" is better. If you wish to then compare this to the Nazi rationale, all I can say is that I don't accept your reasoning and wish this scum to be killed.

Tankertrashnav
7th May 2013, 23:15
My preference to the death penalty has always been, and always will be: life imprisonment without any possibility of parole, spent in solitary confinement with no time away from that cell for anything i.e., no exercise, no TV, no books, no contact with any human being, no nothing. In essence: you slowly but surely go mad.


I'm with rgbrock on this. In 1966 the death penalty had only recently (effectively) been abolished in the UK. There was a huge swell of opinion that it should be brought back for The Moors Murderers (convicted multiple child killers for the benefit of non - Brits who may not be familiar with the case). They were both sentenced to life imprisonment.

Myra Hindley, in spite of the best efforts of meddling campaigners led by Lord Longford, was never released and died in prison some years ago. Her partner Ian Brady remains in a secure unit for the criminally insane, and in spite of his pleas to be allowed to commit suicide has been kept alive to live out his sentence.

Now consider - a swift and merciful death after a month or two when the appeals ran out (they didn't take 20 years in this country), or a lifetime's incarceration and disintegration - which would you choose? There is no doubt in my mind that the pair were justly punished far more harshly than had they been executed. So I'm going for the life option every time. Not because I'm a softie, or a tree-hugger, or a leftie, or a fluffy (God preserve us!) but because I don't see why murderers should be offered a swift way out but should have a lifetime to reflect on their crimes.

PingDit
7th May 2013, 23:31
It would be wrong in every respect to put someone to death for a crime that has not been committed. I believe that you would also be hard pushed to have him committed - albeit he sounds as if he should be, and not released until deemed safe to do so - if ever.

As for the death penalty when warranted; definitely. Why should the taxpayer fund their very existence. All the time they live, they may be of the belief that they are still of some value to someone, somewhere. The death penalty, swiftly introduced, will prove otherwise.

AlpineSkier
7th May 2013, 23:34
SSK


He should be locked up, for a very long time. And while he is locked up, the necessary assessments should be made as to whether he should ever be able to walk free. But put to death? For what crime?

You agree he should be locked up for a long time but then ask why he should be killed ?

My answer is that he should be killed for the same crime for which he was imprisoned. If your country won't kill him, for what crime is he imprisoned ?

PTT
7th May 2013, 23:36
Insanity. He is likely a sociopath.

West Coast
8th May 2013, 02:24
What's overlooked is that the death penalty is also meant to be a deterrent to those who follow in addition to punishing the criminal. The death penalty as it stands isn't an effective deterrent. Any number of times I've read of someone (Tim McVey as an example) on death row asking that the appeals process be waived so they can speed their own execution. The analogy, whether true or not is that lethal injection is akin to going to sleep and never waking up, preferable at least to some to a life time in prison of getting BUFU'd by others, sold for a pack of cigs and being someone's bitch.
To make the death penalty effective from a deterrent perspective, it has to be so incredibly violent, vile, revolting and public that it gives that carjacker pause before heading out to his choosen profession.

I won't hold my breath it will ever happen however.

hellsbrink
8th May 2013, 04:28
That said, the threat of the death penalty may have some deterrent effect with some people. To that end I believe it should be an option, but only for certain crimes and only in those cases where the individual is caught red-handed.

So you agree with me then.


Lookit, this topic has come up time and again here, and the old "they might kill the wrong guy" reason against execution gets trotted out time and again, even though the advances in forensics compared to 20 years ago can actually prove something beyond reasonable doubt so we should be able to prove beyond doubt that the person accused did actually do it. To look at some more recent cases to see what I mean:-

Mick Philpott
Stuart Hazell (not yet convicted but evidence so far is pretty damning)
Mark Bridger (burned the body in his house?)
Melanie Smith (set a fire which killed some neighbours because she was pissed off at a pushchair being left in the hallway)

Now, I know I'm picking some of the more extreme and, well, "emotional" cases, but in reality what could be appealed given the evidence presented against these people? When you talk about "a flaw in the prosecution case" are you saying that these people should be let off for what they did because of something like a clerical error? Also, given that some people spend a decade or more on "Death Row" in the US, at the expense of the taxpayer and in a sort of luxury they did not give their victims, why should the execution not be carried out much, much sooner given that any potential flaws in the case would be discovered much, much sooner? So why should someone not be incarcerated for a period of 6 months to ensure nobody has been sloppy and then executed because, let's face it, jail time is money.

Or, to put it another way. The average cost per year per prisoner in the UK is £40k. Philpott's minimum term will cost the taxpayer a minimum of almost £700k. Add in all the others like him who are facing a life sentence or are currently serving one for those certain types of crime mentioned before and you get an extremely large number. Will any of these people be appealing against their sentence? No, of course not, not any more. They're just sitting in jail at the taxpayer's expense getting 3 squares and a roof over their head, there's no contribution to any society, just an expense.

So you have , as of 2011, 14650 prisoners in England and Wales alone on "indeterminate life sentences" at a cost of an average of £40k per person per year. That gives a figure of £586000000 (586 MILLION POUNDS) per YEAR to keep that sort of scum alive. Yet you never hear a peep about that, yet there was all sorts of nonsense and squealing like little girls throwing a tantrum at the thought of the country having to pay a couple of million for Thatcher's funeral, so think of how many hospitals and nurses you could have for that half a billion per year (and that's just the "lifers") and then justify the cost of keeping them alive........

Ancient Mariner
8th May 2013, 05:38
AlpineSkier, since you asked. I am firmly a).
Per

radeng
8th May 2013, 09:52
Hellsbrink,

Timothy John Evans and possibly James Hanratty? Derek Bentley? Even William Joyce?

The SSK
8th May 2013, 10:04
No doubt amongst the 14,650 that Hellsbrink would like to have 'eliminated' to save the country some money there are a few other unsafe convictions too.

Capetonian
8th May 2013, 10:05
The argument about incorrect evidence resulting in the wrong person being accused is possibly the soundest argument against the death penalty. That is why those who propose it generally do so on the basis of 'beyond reasonable doubt', and I have mentioned several such cases where there is no doubt.

HB has already mentioned that forensics have advanced beyond recognition since the four cases you mention, of which the most recent is half a century ago. That somewhat discredits your argument.

Timothy John Evans 1950
James Hanratty 1962
Derek Bentley 1953
Even William Joyce 1946

Caco
Capetonian, do you believe that Mandela should have been hanged?. I am looking forward to his 95 birthday but don't let that get in the way of your righteousness.
There are many who do believe that he should have been hanged, and many who will rejoice in his death as they rejoiced at Margaret Thatcher's death. I find this repellent. Sadly, I know people who fall into this category and even with my views, I have expunged them from my social circle.

I don't believe he should have been hanged, but at the time, and based on the information that we were being fed by the Botha/Vorster/Verwoerd propaganda machines, it is understandable why many felt, then, that he should have been. It is only with the current knowledge that we have of him that we can make a better judgement.

He plotted the overthrow of a government and the methodology he might have been going to use might have caused deaths but there are too many hidden truths and unknowns here to call a judgement.

PTT
8th May 2013, 10:37
@ hellsbrinkSo you agree with me then.If you are saying that the death penalty should be an option only when the individual is caught red-handed, then yes. It should be used sparingly though: taking a life is not something which should be done without the most stringent consideration.

Of the examples you gave, I don't think any of them should qualify as they weren't caught red-handed. Sure, all of the evidence points at them having done it, and beyond reasonable doubt at that, but they were not caught in the act. Reasonable doubt is one thing; caught in the act is another.
When you talk about "a flaw in the prosecution case" are you saying that these people should be let off for what they did because of something like a clerical error?There is a reason that procedures must be followed strictly: if the procedure is incorrect then the logic leading to a conviction may fail at some point, and if the logic fails then there is doubt, and doubt is what we must try to eliminate from these hearings, and absolutely in cases where the death penalty is to be applied.

You appear, in your last two paragraphs, to be advocating killing these people because they are too expensive to keep alive. That's not a particularly moral argument, and is far from convincing given the context."The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons."
--Dostoyevsky

rgbrock1
8th May 2013, 12:33
West Coast wrote:

To make the death penalty effective from a deterrent perspective, it has to be so incredibly violent, vile, revolting and public that it gives that carjacker pause before heading out to his choosen profession.

Whether or not I support the ultimate penalty, or not, is irrelevant here. However, I will say this about the above statement: regardless of how brutal or violent the execution of a death sentence may be, it will never act as a deterrent. Those who commit crimes which may, or may not, require death as a penalty are not thinking of the consequences of their actions when performing their deeds: those consequences are the furthest from their minds.

PTT
8th May 2013, 12:41
Made quite a study into the mindset of such people, have you rgbrock1?

Capetonian
8th May 2013, 12:47
However, I will say this about the above statement: regardless of how brutal or violent the execution of a death sentence may be, it will never act as a deterrent. Those who commit crimes which may, or may not, require death as a penalty are not thinking of the consequences of their actions when performing their deeds:

I don't have the mindset of a criminal or a lunatic (some may wish to disagree), but I would say that whilst the above may be true in the context of crimes committed in the heat of the moment, it does not apply to pre-meditated, calculated crimes committed over a period of time.

rgbrock1
8th May 2013, 13:07
Capetonian:

And you don't think that someone who commits apre-meditated, calculated crime is thinking of the consequences of his/her actions? I don't think they are. Not fully. I think some who commit these types of crimes think they can get away with it or never really consider any of the repercussions of their acts.

Do you think someone like the kook in Colorado who shot up the movie theater thought about those consequences? Did Adam Lanza think about the consequences of his actions before he murdered 18 children and 2 adults? Did Timothy McVeigh? Did the other two nut-cases in Columbine? Did Jeffrey Dahmer? I don't think any of them did. And every one of these crimes was well thought out, planned and executed.

Capetonian
8th May 2013, 13:41
The point is RGB that none of us know, because we don't have the mind set of a murdering lunatic/fanatic criminal (at least, I don't!).

My point is that if they pre-meditate and commit such crimes, regardless of whether they consider the consequences or not, they should be removed from society. If it deters others from doing the same, it's a 'win win' situation, if it doesn't then it's a 'win' as society has been ridded of someone who is not fit to be in it, and the probability of his committing a crime again is reduced to zero.

cockney steve
8th May 2013, 13:51
This fantasist is obviously a lot of slates short of a roof. He's not yet had tha chance to act out his fantasies....so lock him up in a secure institution for the criminally insane.

The "have to live with himself" scenario doesn't fly with this fruitcake,- to him, his thoughts are " normal " so let him live his version of normality where it won,t impinge on the safety and welfare of the vast majority of the population.

If there weren,t so many incompetent/lazy/inefficient/corrupt "upholders" of justice and Law Enforcement, I'd go along with the "string-em-up" brigade.....but despite the huge advances in Forensics (now hived off to incompetent big-business) and DNA, these unsafe and sometimes blatantly flawed convictions keep coming to light.There is a reason that procedures must be followed strictly: if the procedure is incorrect then the logic leading to a conviction may fail at some point, and if the logic fails then there is doubt, and doubt is what we must try to eliminate from these hearings, and absolutely in cases where the death penalty is to be applied.
And youREALLY think an incompetent/corrupt/bungling Police Force is going to admit to it's incompetence?

They all keep shtum and hope no-one blabs (Stefan Kiszko, anyone)

Don't even attempt the"it couldn't happen today" line.

Brazilian pumped full of lead by "trained Marksmen" who acted like trigger-happy thugs? "nuicance"layabout/drunk/newsvendor knocked-down by a London Copper.....I could go on, but I.m sure you get the point.

Most cases don't have the "smoking-gun" even a confession is not to be trusted,as the interrogators /techniques are questionable. If they weren't so damned keen on performance tables and ratings-charts,not to mention the "brownie points" for the promotion-ladder, then Id be more inclined towards the Death Penalty.

As it is, the "system" is sodiscredited, it's safer to give them "life" and where their deceit comes to light, the Taxpayer picks -up the Compo-tab, whilst the Plod involved,hope to all be retired by then. (secure pension, so no sanctions available,- see Primrose Shipman....now,if He'd been properly dealt with, She wouldn't have got his lavish pension! )

WRT the prison -service and prison-costs, a large amount of this is just Gov't "smoke and mirrors" VAT, Rates, NIC etc are simply going from one gov't pocket to another....even the employees and what they spend. it's all taxed.....think how much it would cost to keep the entire prison and Probation service on the dole!!!!

In an ideal world, - string-'em up. ....It's not, so lock them up for life, no parole.

PTT
8th May 2013, 13:54
And youREALLY think an incompetent/corrupt/bungling Police Force is going to admit to it's incompetence?All the more reason not to take an irrevocable step.

rgbrock1
8th May 2013, 13:58
Capetonian wrote:

My point is that if they pre-meditate and commit such crimes, regardless of whether they consider the consequences or not, they should be removed from society.

I have no problem with their removal from society. Whether locked up for life in prison or in a rubber room.

ExXB
8th May 2013, 14:01
Killing another human being is Evil. Pure and simple. No matter what the reason or justification.

rgbrock1
8th May 2013, 14:06
ExXB:

Was the killing of Osama bin Laden evil as well? Just curious.

Curious Pax
8th May 2013, 14:06
I don't believe he should have been hanged, but at the time, and based on the information that we were being fed by the Botha/Vorster/Verwoerd propaganda machines, it is understandable why many felt, then, that he should have been. It is only with the current knowledge that we have of him that we can make a better judgement.

He plotted the overthrow of a government and the methodology he might have been going to use might have caused deaths but there are too many hidden truths and unknowns here to call a judgement.

Wise words Cape - insert any leaders of a state in place of your South African examples and it still applies. It also applies to criminal cases.

As the resident PPrune judge has submitted in the past, the judgements you make on the guilt or otherwise of a defendant usually depend solely on the news reporting of the trial. Strangely these reports after a conviction usually focus on the parts of the trial that seemed to demonstrate guilt, and if they can make it salacious then even better. In the high profile cases mentioned I doubt anyone here was in court for the whole case, and thus hear the full defence case.

I always ask the same question on the death penalty - would you be prepared for yourself or those close to you be executed by mistake? Although what has been said about the improvements in evidence such as DNA, there is still an element of margin for human error in almost all cases. Even if you come across someone standing over a corpse holding a knife dripping blood, if you didn't actually see the act can you be sure that they didn't pick the weapon up after someone else had done the deed?

Convictions are obtained when the evidence is beyond reasonable doubt. Beyond reasonable doubt doesn't mean there is absolutely no way that someone is not guilty. As such, and in answer to the OP, no I wouldn't support the death penalty. Nor would I support some of the more inhumane ideas proposed by some here - some of the postings make me wonder about the sanity of the poster! I would support life imprisonment where appropriate, and better funding for the services that oversee the mental health judgements in many of these cases in order that better decisions can be made if (often a big if) someone may be deemed fit for release.

rgbrock1
8th May 2013, 14:16
Curious wrote:

Even if you come across someone standing over a corpse holding a knife dripping blood, if you didn't actually see the act can you be sure that they didn't pick the weapon up after someone else had done the deed?

See: The Green Mile

Thomas coupling
8th May 2013, 14:25
A big NO to the death sentence. Sub human in nature and very uncivilised form of retribution.
Why do it? Does it clear one's conscience?
Incarcerate him forever.

It never ceases to amaze me how Americans can have the DP in one county and not in another? How can that be? What happens on the borders - does one feel inclined towards either/or on differing days of the week?:mad:

rgbrock1
8th May 2013, 14:35
The death penalty in America does NOT vary from county to county. It DOES vary from State to State. Each State makes the decision on whether or not it has the death penalty. And that decision applies to the entire State, not just to a county or two.

Capetonian
8th May 2013, 14:49
A big NO to the death sentence. Sub human in nature and very uncivilised form of retribution.
Why do it? Does it clear one's conscience?
Incarcerate him forever.

Very mixed thinking.

It's not retribution - it's a solution to rid society of a person who is not fit to be part of it, and to ensure 100% that they do not reoffend.

As others have said, incarcerating him for ever is probably crueller than death, and yet you're against death penalty.

bluecode
8th May 2013, 17:47
Yes sure if someone killed one of mine. I'd like to kill them myself but that's heat of the moment stuff. There is something obscene about the deliberate cold blooded execution of someone no matter what their crime. It taints the people who carry it out due the deliberate nature of it. By coincidence yesterday I happened across some film on the Pathe website which featured executions of individuals by the Allies post war, some of it close up. None of it was particularly edifying and many of the executed would have felt they were doing their duty as they saw it.

Plus I'm also of the belief that it's an easy option for the killer. Much better to keep them alone with their thoughts for years and years. As there is no hell, that is the closest we can ever get to sending someone there.

On the other hand, execution is never just a punishment for evildoers. It's also an instrument of oppression, of revenge or as a political message to others. All too often the person being executed doesn't deserve to die. I'd bet the the majority of those executed over the centuries didn't deserve it. You only have to look at the majority of countries who still have capital punishment on their books to see that. America of course being a bit different because each State has it's own laws on the subject. But at the same time it tells you something about the attitudes you find in these states particularly when you look at exactly who make up the majority of those executed.

Capital punishment is not neccessary and it's a black mark on any country that practices it.

PukinDog
8th May 2013, 19:44
ExXB
Killing another human being is Evil. Pure and simple. No matter what the reason or justification.

What if it's a mercy kill to spare someone an agonizing death? You know, like in The Sand Pebbles when Steve McQueen shoots his coolie friend who's starting to get the death of 1,000 cuts, or when Hawkeye shoots the Brit officer who's starting to get tortured/cooked by the Indians in Last of the Mohicans.

I think those are examples of righteous kills, as well as why everyone should be well-trained in marksmanship just in case someone you like finds themselves in that situation, or vice versa.

Lonewolf_50
8th May 2013, 20:55
On the other hand, some folks just need killin' :E

Points of reference on that quote: Movie (Sling Blade)
The story of Francine Hughes (made into the movie "The Burning Bed" in 1984)

Mike Cox is an author who wrote two pretty good books about the Texas Rangers, law enforcement, and none of them is named Chuck Norris.

There's an old Texas expression that some men just need killing, but sometimes, particularly in the frontier days, it was a Texas Ranger, not a judge and jury, who decided whether someone needed killing.
Sometimes, people don't need killing.

con-pilot
8th May 2013, 21:33
I am curious as to just what makes people that are against the death penalty think that just because a murderer is sent to prison, that they stop killing people.

As many times they do not. After all, if the murderer is serving life without parole, what do they have to lose?

Nothing.

I met* a prison hit man that retired when the death penalty was reinstated under Federal Law. His price to kill a fellow inmate, three cartons of cigarettes.


* Well actually I flew him to his new prison in one of our small jets, that was his reward for turning State's evidence. As far as I know he never killed anyone again.

cockney steve
8th May 2013, 21:36
I forgot to add, re-life imprisonment....Hindley was desparate to get out....she died incarcerated for her heinous crimes.

Her evil partner in crime, Brady, had enough of his punishment and wanted to die...he was forcibly kept alive and still endures his time in a secure nuthouse. the fact he wanted to die is pretty well indicative of his cognisance of his situation.

West Coast
8th May 2013, 22:47
RG
At its worst it would be at least as effective as your suggestion. If it was carried out in the manner I suggest, it would without doubt have some degree of deterrent value.

gorter
8th May 2013, 23:12
I've read every single post on this thread and I think it may become one of the most prolific threads here.

I'm looking at this from 2 angles. If this man had gotten his hands on my daughter, Cerberus himself would not have been able to keep me out of the gates of hell to hurt this man for all eternity. Even if it meant I spent my eternity in hell itself. It would have been an easy decision.

However as an intellectual exercise.

1) I loathe the death penalty to the core I cannot accept that one innocent may be executed even if it means 100 guilty aren't.

2) if you are innocent, without the death penalty, at least even if convicted you have the chance to appeal. One day you may get free. Look at the Birmingham six or the Guildford four. In the US, they would have fried!

3) No civilised country in the world would execute this man for what evidence has been put forward. He wouldn't even spend a day in prison. Locked up in a nut house, absolutely, but he has not committed a crime as far as I can tell.

So no this bloke shouldn't be executed. As reprehensible as he is he should not be executed.

West Coast
9th May 2013, 02:59
Unless of course it was your daughter or wife.

CityofFlight
9th May 2013, 03:15
Exactly, West Coast....when you see or hear the horrific details of your loved one's demise, suddenly the perp's life or rights fail to matter.

We have a trial that just reached a guilty verdict today. This woman stabbed her lover 27 times, then nearly decapitated him by a slash across the throat and then shot him in the head. She admits it. She said it was domestic violence, though they were not in a committed relationship or were living together, nor was there any evidence of domestic violence.

She has just stated that she would rather be put to death than live her potentially long and natural life, in prison.

Some say, give her life, make her suffer the time. I say, give her death and let her live those moments of fear knowing her end is coming. I suspect those moments will be similar to the terror this guy felt breathing his last breaths. Never mind sparing the tax payers for keeping her in prison.

parabellum
9th May 2013, 05:31
the Birmingham six or the Guildford four


You think they were innocent?

PTT
9th May 2013, 05:47
Did anyone see the Black Mirror episode 2 of series 2 called "White Bear"? Relevant to this, I think. There's a synopsis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Black_Mirror_episodes#Series_2) on Wiki.

gorter
9th May 2013, 09:59
the Birmingham six or the Guildford four


You think they were innocent?

Not wanting to detract too far from the focus of this discussion. But the British legal system certainly seems to think so (and in the case of the Birmingham six the levels of compensation really seems to infer that), and that is good enough for me.

AlpineSkier
9th May 2013, 10:17
Not wanting to detract too far from the focus of this discussion. But the British legal system certainly seems to think so (and in the case of the Birmingham six the levels of compensation really seems to infer that), and that is good enough for me

I don't remember the evidence or trials of these people, but have to point out that being found "not guilty" according to the laws of evidence, absolutely is not the same as being innocent, which is presumably why there is no verdict of "innocent".

The killers of Steven Lawrence ( 1974-1993 ) were judged "not guilty" initially, whereas there was so much "evidence" in the public domain that one newspaper risked ( legally-speaking at least ) massive damages by naming them as murderers in a headline. Two of the killers were subsequently re-tried - after the law was changed to allow double-jeopardy - and convicted: at least one of the two has now admitted his guilt and urged the others to do the same.

radeng
9th May 2013, 10:29
Cape

Modern forensic science would have made no difference in the cases of Joyce or Bentley, so that argument is, I'm afraid, specious.

I do question the reasoning behind life sentences not being that, though...The US sometimes appears rather draconian, but has a system where life imprisonment can mean just that...

onetrack
9th May 2013, 10:32
There are many reasons, mostly simplistic ones, why the death penalty for abhorrent crimes seems like a good thing.

However, upon close examination, the death penalty argument is one centred around bibilical revenge, and the seeking of "justice". Justice is not necessarily properly served, by applying the death penalty.

Consider these facts:

In the U.S., it can cost between $2.5M and $5M to carry out a legally-approved execution.

In one year - 2004 - in the U.S., there were 16,137 murders - but only 125 death sentences were handed out, and only 59 executions actually took place.
Of those death sentences officially ordered, many were from offences carried out up to a decade before 2004.

If you support the death penalty, shouldn't this have meant that 16,137 people should have been executed in 2004 in the U.S.?

Would this have meant a much safer U.S. if all these "eye-for-an-eye" executions had been carried out?

The evidence doesn't support it. Fully 88% of legal "brains" interviewed, doubt that the death sentence has any deterrent effect.

Funnily enough, drug epidemics are highly accurate precursors of murder epidemics. Drug dealers, or drug users, shooting drug dealers. Shouldn't we be giving these murderers a medal, instead? :ooh:

The only thing that I believe should be a primary rule, is a life sentence should be a true life sentence, for shocking crimes such as child murder or rapist/murderers.

None of this 20yr life sentence BS. 20 yrs is nothing in the average lifespan of today. 20yr maximum sentences for a "life" sentence, only result in a number of murderers getting out, and doing the same thing again.

No, despite the fact that blowing scumbags away seems like a great idea - it's a knee-jerk reaction, that isn't supported by a period of lengthy considered thought about the sheer complexity of severe crimes, and the subsets of those crimes, that do not justify the same response or revulsion as the most extreme acts of crime.

Lock up the vicious murderers and throw away the key. Let them live out their miserable lives behind serious security, aging and decaying, knowing full well they can never achieve anything, or even enjoy the simple things the people on the outside enjoy.
And we can relish the fact they can almost certainly never again, carry out any of their despicable criminal actions, that got them life behind bars.

In the case of Bin Laden, he, along with many others of his ilk, would never allow himself to be taken alive - so the question is a little academic. What is interesting, is how Bin Laden and other extremist murderers, prefer death to being incarcerated for life.

As to the subject of the initial post - no, he can't be punished for a crime he hasn't committed. He certainly needs to be detained in a secure mental institution, as his admitted thoughts, actions, and planning are not the work of a sane person.

gorter
9th May 2013, 10:44
I don't remember the evidence or trials of these people, but have to point out that being found "not guilty" according to the laws of evidence, absolutely is not the same as being innocent, which is presumably why there is no verdict of "innocent".

Ok move away from the term innocent. However in both cases the evidence found that the convictions were unsafe and were quashed. In both cases there was evidence (although never proven) of coercion tampering and possible torture by the police. In the case of the Birmingham 6 it was so clear that each was given a ballpark figure of around £1000000 of compensation if my memory serves me correctly.

That totally moves away from the discussion which you started and I apologise to the group for doing so.

Bringing it back to the original argument. If it was one of mine that this bloke had gotten his hands on (if he had not been stopped when he was) then yes I personally would go after him.

However as per my arguments from last night, I don't think he'd actually committed a crime yet (my opinion only) and therefore shouldn't even go to prison let alone be executed.

However he should spend a long time under the supervision of suitably qualified medical professionals. If proven beyond reasonable doubt that he is cured perhaps one day released (suitably supervised). If not spend his days in a padded room.

TURIN
9th May 2013, 12:36
Why should the taxpayer be paying to ensure that those who have committed crimes serious enough to warrant execution have a better and longer life than their victims?

Because, as has been said, the judiciary system is not perfect.
Judges, Police, Legal representatives, Forensic experts, Professional/Specialist witnesses etc can and do get it wrong. Either accidentally or by design (corrupt).

A 'sound' conviction "beyond reasonable doubt" is an ideal that only the guilty know is correct.

One of my favourite lines of literature, read it when I was a kid and it still strikes me today.

Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends.
J. R. R. Tolkien, The Lord Of the Rings, Book Four, Chapter One
British scholar & fantasy novelist (1892 - 1973)

rgbrock1
9th May 2013, 12:38
TURIN wrote:

Judges, Police, Legal representatives, Forensic experts, Professional/Specialist witnesses etc can and do get it wrong.

As do juries. See: O.J. Simpson

bluecode
9th May 2013, 15:11
Quote:

the Birmingham six or the Guildford four
You think they were innocent?
They had no hand or part in the bombings. Both were examples of classic miscarriages of justice and are a powerful arguments against the death penalty. I don't understand why you feel the need to introduce this red herring into the discussion.

Alpine Skier:I don't remember the evidence or trials of these people, but have to point out that being found "not guilty" according to the laws of evidence, absolutely is not the same as being innocent, which is presumably why there is no verdict of "innocent".
I refer to my above comments. This is not an example of defendants being released because of some technicality but an example of people being convicted for something they didn't do in large part because of the police's incompetence and their desire to find someone, anyone to take the rap.

It's remarkable that even in these high profile cases there are still people prepared to believe they were involved. Despite the fact that the names of the real bombers are actually in the public domain.:ugh:

ENFP
9th May 2013, 16:33
Alpine Skier

I have just read the thread in its entirety and thought at the start, what an excellent thread. However, by the end of page two it became clear that you really were not seeking the genuine views of others unless the views coincided with your own. You have given the most appalling treatment to other posters simply because they do not agree with you. If you would have just posted details at the first post and left it with 'you think he should die', fair enough, but you actually ask for the thoughts of others and then attack them when they have an opposing view. It's totally wrong.

The guy in question has not committed a crime, so execution is a bit problematic. He needs secure detention where he can be properly evaluated, that shouldn't be too difficult, he has already admitted to some horrific behavioural abnormalities. If the shrinks feel they have a mad potential child murderer then keep in the padded cell and throw the key away.

The talk of horrific vengance executions reminds me of sharia law...I don't like it, and supposedly about 99% of readers here don't either.

I am in complete kilter with rgb1 , lock them up for good. Now the Russians know how to do it. Watch the first 15 mins of the video below to see the Russian max security prison known as 'Black Dolphin'. The prisoners admit that all hope has been taken away from their lives and everyday is true suffering. If anyone hurts one of my family, I would gladly pay the Russian government the costs of the lifelong detention if I could arrange to have them transferred and locked up in Black Dolphin. Watch it, it's true suffering and how ALL prisoners guilty of the most horrific crimes should be treated.

Inside: Russias Toughest Prisons (National Geographic) FULL VIDEO - YouTube

AlpineSkier
9th May 2013, 17:29
ENFP

Having looked back, I have to say that you are correct -it really does look that way and I haven't given other posters the respect their views deserve just because they are not the same as mine and I apologise to The SSK and wings folded for that ( and any others who feel they were slighted ).

Having also read all responses, I now think my initial suggestion was excessive and the guy should be detained as mentally-ill.

ENFP
9th May 2013, 17:46
Having looked back, I have to say that you are correct -it really does look that way and I haven't given other posters the respect their views deserve just because they are not the same as mine and I apologise to The SSK and wings folded for that ( and any others who feel they were slighted ).

Having also read all responses, I now think my initial suggestion was excessive and the guy should be detained as mentally-ill.

A fine post and one that I hope will be appreciated by many on here.

rgbrock1
9th May 2013, 18:14
AlpineSkier:

To admit ones mistake* in an on line forum as you did above speaks volumes for you as a person. Kudos to you sir. (Or ma'am but i don't think so.) :D:D:ok::ok:

*not really a mistake, per se, but more of an inaccuracy perhaps?

Dushan
9th May 2013, 21:52
Looks like the Cleveland DA is going to seek death penalty:ok:

Bail set at $8 million for kidnap suspect; prosecutor may seek death penalty (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/accused-kidnapper-3-women-appear-court-084310905.html)

CityofFlight
9th May 2013, 22:01
Dushan....he's a monster. He repeatedly inflicted bodily harm on one of the girls, until it terminated each pregnancy caused by his repeated rapes.

After 10 years in his captivity, they will never be the normal girls.

Scum of the earth.

Capetonian
9th May 2013, 22:05
It is this type of case which is a very sound argument against the death penalty. He shouldn't be allowed to die quickly and painlessly. He should be made to suffer day in and day out, and slowly starved and beaten until his body just gives up.

That makes us no better than him, in a way ........ but what else do you do to someone like that? To call him an animal is an insult to everything that walks on four legs.

Dushan
9th May 2013, 22:29
Agree with both of you.

He deserves a slow and painful death, but sadly it won't happen, I am afraid. He is already making ovations how he is a victim of sexual assault himself. Remember, also, this is Cleveland the land of perpetual Obama voter. If they could elect Obama twice, what chances are there that a jury will convict him. Expect another "if it doesn't fit, you must acquit"

CityofFlight
9th May 2013, 22:37
I don't think he'll be acquitted, but I do think the best possible outcome will be life. He's guilty, suicide note or not. And with that, I doubt a jury/judge will hand down the death penalty.

But comments at the bottom of the Yahoo post you linked sure support it though!

Cacophonix
9th May 2013, 22:57
Dushan, I wonder how you would work out on a lifer in Chino. Suspect you'd be liberated sooner than later...

Caco

Dushan
9th May 2013, 23:02
Caco, it's bad enough having to deal with your posts.

Cacophonix
9th May 2013, 23:04
Caco, it's bad enough having to deal with your posts.


If you are not careful I will post a music video. You have been warned! ;)

Caco

Ozzy
9th May 2013, 23:08
I believe in the death penalty. Guess this thread is not for me. Go your own way peeps.

Ozzy

CityofFlight
9th May 2013, 23:17
Ozzy...it's refreshing for all of us not to agree. I have gained great insight from the folks here, who write compelling, intelligent, succinct comments.

Not so much so when the stick that's been beating the dead horse of a thread, is down to a small stub. And yet....they continue. :ugh:

Cacophonix
9th May 2013, 23:22
And yet....they continue. :ugh:

Indeed they do.

Do yourself a favour, you have so many opportunities to do this in the US. Go and watch an execution and tell me that it is not a disturbing thing, even if, as you seem to be, completely sure of guilt.

God help us all!

Caco

CityofFlight
9th May 2013, 23:28
And this further supports my comment of compelling, intelligent, succinct posts--or lack thereof.

:rolleyes:

Cacophonix
9th May 2013, 23:31
And this further supports my comment of compelling, intelligent, succinct posts--or lack thereof.

As, you know, I am in awe of your succinct ability to do ...

Caco

lomapaseo
9th May 2013, 23:36
We get to trial something against the abortion arguments yet again

An Ohio prosecutor vowed to pursue murder charges (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/09/18145259-prosecutor-will-seek-murder-charges-for-terminated-pregnancies-in-kidnap-case?lite) against the accused Ohio kidnapper for 'terminating pregnancies' of the women he allegedly held captive.

This will certainly make it to the Supreme Court in about 10 years

CityofFlight
9th May 2013, 23:48
Yep...no matter the judgement, this monster will be in prison, going through every legal appeal allowed, I suspect.

Assuming the prosecutors don't botch the trial. :bored:

Cacophonix
9th May 2013, 23:52
To argue from the specific to the general is bad philosophy.

Still, in this particular case, as in all, may justice prevail.

Caco

Cacophonix
10th May 2013, 00:53
Dushan....he's a monster.

My Lud, you hear it here from friends of the accused. Let us ask the monster himself...

Dushan?

Caco

Ozzy
10th May 2013, 01:15
Guess he will claim he was beaten as a child...

Murder charges sought against Ohio man in ending captives' pregnancies - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/09/us/ohio-missing-women-found/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)

Ozzy

Cacophonix
10th May 2013, 01:24
Well yes Ozzie!

But let's look at the possibility of connivance in this situation...

I know I am an agent provocateur but still!

Hopefully you haven't been ****** in some dungeon Dude? That would be so un Oz!


Ozzy Osbourne Paranoid - YouTube

Caco

Ozzy
10th May 2013, 01:51
But let's look at the possibility of connivance in this situation...


Great, bring the connivers to the execution chamber then! After the trial of course....

Ozzy

nice vid by the way ;)

Cacophonix
10th May 2013, 02:01
Nice vid by the way http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif


:ok:


BLACK SABBATH Paranoid 3D - YouTube

Caco

Capetonian
10th May 2013, 05:51
Having just read a bit more about this Castro case, I am compelled to modify what I wrote last night :

To call him an animal is an insult to everything that walks on four legs.

...... and anything which crawls, leaves a trail of slime, lives under stones or garbage, or at the bottom of a pond, or the like of which I have removed from the undersides of my shoes.

PukinDog
10th May 2013, 07:02
ENFP
I have just read the thread in its entirety ....

The guy in question has not committed a crime, so execution is a bit problematic. He needs secure detention where he can be properly evaluated, that shouldn't be too difficult, he has already admitted to some horrific behavioural abnormalities. If the shrinks feel they have a mad potential child murderer then keep in the padded cell and throw the key away.

He did commit a crime. Several Federal crimes. Soliciting to have someone kidnapped is a crime. Possessing child pornography is a crime (usually a 5+ year sentence). Distributing child pornography is a crime (a greater sentence than possession). He's admitted being guilty of these crimes. He'll be sentenced to 18 to 27 years in a Federal prison for committing them. Upon his eventual release from prison he'll be deported back to the UK, and as part of his sentence he submits to lifelong supervision and to be registered as a sex offender in the category of those most likely commit similar crimes again.

There's no debate as to whether he's guilty. He's admitted it and there's the evidence; child pornography found on his computer, records that show he distributed the child pornography, and his repeated conversations with his accomplice (also charged) who was to do the kidnapping. Those conversations included sharing pictures and names of specific, actual children discussed as potential targets/victims.

The solicitation is a crime without even adressing the monstrous reasons why he wanted someone to kidnap a child for him. A person can be guilty of this crime even if there's no intention to physically harm the child (like in cases where someone isn't able to have their own child and want one that badly). A person could be guilty of this crime with money/ransom or blackmail as the motivator instead of sexual-torture, thrill-killing cannibalism. The point of having laws that criminalize solicitation or conspiring to commit certain criminal acts is so law enforcement can intervene before those criminal acts are carried out. There is no crime in only "thinking things", no matter how abhorrent. But when a person actively and knowingly takes steps towards certain criminal ends (kidnapping, murder), a threshold this side of requiring a victim being actually produced has been determined, and reaching that threshold is defined as a criminal act. The "It was only talk/fantasy" and/or lack of a victim fails as a defense when enough of those steps are taken and the threshold has been reached.

Fortunately, it appears this sicko freak was too stupid to know that reaching out to others to discuss/make plans to kidnap someone or have them kidnapped is a crime unto itself. He probably only understood the extent of his ignorance after being arrested and having the law explained to him by his own defense attorney.

ExXB
10th May 2013, 08:17
ExXB:

Was the killing of Osama bin Laden evil as well? Just curious.

Yes.

Is he the most evil person you can think of? There were many much worse than him.

SealinkBF
10th May 2013, 08:21
They have the death penalty in America and there are NO murders there, so it must work.

MagnusP
10th May 2013, 09:18
Caco:

Go and watch an execution and tell me that it is not a disturbing thing

Tell you what, sit through criminal trials trials as my job requires me to do, watch videos of 18 month old babies being raped and tell me that it is not a disturbing thing, and that the perpetrators just require peace, love and understanding.

We put down dogs that attack and kill children, don't we?

SealinkBF:
They have the death penalty in America and there are NO murders there, so it must work.

We have imprisonment in the UK and there is NO reoffending on release here, so it must work, eh?

tony draper
10th May 2013, 09:33
I don't believe in this sissy lethal Injection nonsense, I think being executed should hurt.
:rolleyes:

SealinkBF
10th May 2013, 11:05
SealinkBF:
Quote:
They have the death penalty in America and there are NO murders there, so it must work.
We have imprisonment in the UK and there is NO reoffending on release here, so it must work, eh?


Exactly. Both options are broken. Yet people are hell bent on pursuing them.

Capetonian
10th May 2013, 11:12
SealinkBF
They have the death penalty in America and there are NO murders there, so it must work.
We have imprisonment in the UK and there is NO reoffending on release here, so it must work, eh?

By extension, perhaps all punishment should be abolished and all criminals 'rehabilitated'? Is that the society you'd wish to live in?

MagnusP
10th May 2013, 11:28
Execute a murderer, no likelihood of reoffending.
Release a "rehabilitated" murderer, many have gone on to kill again.

PukinDog
10th May 2013, 11:30
SealinkBF
Exactly. Both options are broken. Yet people are hell bent on pursuing them.

There's an easy fix. Since, in your view Punishment doesn't work, simply do away with the notion of Crime altogether.

Nothing will be against the law, because there is no law other than the law of Nature we are born into. Murder isn't. Rape isn't. Kidnapping isn't. The acts that were once considered crimes now arent, because crime doesn't exist.

So there you go, all the broken things are fixed now.

rgbrock1
10th May 2013, 12:03
PukinDog wrote:

There's an easy fix. Since, in your view Punishment doesn't work, simply do away with the notion of Crime altogether.

Exactly. We'll let all the criminals sit together in a circle and sing Kumbaja. Then afterwards we can send them on their merry way.

radeng
10th May 2013, 12:15
Of course these low lives need peace, love and understanding. The sort that Black Dolphin gives them. It's a much nastier punishment than death, and should there prove to have been a mistake, it is reversible.

SealinkBF
10th May 2013, 12:18
Haha. I love how my two posts on the subject have translated to

- I don't believe in punishment
- I don't believe in crime

You're funny people. ****** up, but funny.

Mr Chips
10th May 2013, 17:59
This started off as a thread with huge potential for interesting theoretical discussion....

:ugh:

rgbrock1
10th May 2013, 18:17
... and went straight to hell in a hand basket via express train.

Interflug
10th May 2013, 18:20
Of course it had to go to hell, since it was presented as a "belief" question.
People who believe are the opposite of people who have arguments. Just saying...

Ozzy
10th May 2013, 21:07
Interflug

So you don't have a belief. Nice. And what question?

Ozzy

Dushan
10th May 2013, 21:41
SealinkBF:
Quote:
They have the death penalty in America and there are NO murders there, so it must work.
We have imprisonment in the UK and there is NO reoffending on release here, so it must work, eh?


Exactly. Both options are broken. Yet people are hell bent on pursuing them.


Actually no. One is broken and the other one is not applied often and quickly enough. The ones executed do not reoffend. Guaranteed!

gorter
11th May 2013, 01:08
Execute a murderer, no likelihood of reoffending.
Release a "rehabilitated" murderer, many have gone on to kill again.

That's rather simplistic. By extension execute any criminal and they'll never reoffend. Doesn't mean there will be no crime.

CityofFlight
11th May 2013, 04:29
Interesting how there are a few folks here, ready to jump on the, "US is wrong", band wagon, as usual.

We may not be perfect, but we're a lot more humane in our prisons and how they're treated. The states that have capital punishment will have a prisoner on death row for a decade or more, exhausting all appeals or getting a retrial and/or an amended sentence. Or let free.

Can you same the same about China, Singapore, the ME, Iran....the list of countries is long, who will execute without hesitation, with barely a trial, much less a fair one. Cane beatings for having possession of drugs. Cut off a hand for theft.

I think criminals who know the system and how to beat it, will have no fear of it and will be repeat offenders. Those nations that have zero tolerance sure seem to have less.

radeng
11th May 2013, 08:39
But the US system does look to taking persistent criminals out of society for a long time. It is expensive, but is it any more expensive than letting them carry on with criminal behaviour? In the UK, sentences do not appear very long either in comparison with fifty years ago or the US now, and in many cases, people only serve half the sentence anyway. We do not in, my opinion, meet 'the most humane Mikado' requirement to 'let the punishment fit the crime'. Some cases seem to get barely a slap on the wrist while other very heinous and dangerous crimes - fishing without a licence - attract £500 in fines!

Plus the CPS seem very good at avoiding prosecutions that they feel they can't be 100% sure that they will win...while the police get away with things. Funnily enough Cleveland police (UK, not Ohio!) have just paid half a million pounds for wrongful imprisonment of a guy - it's claimed it was a 'spite arrest' because he was a successful defence solicitor.

Thomas coupling
11th May 2013, 09:38
City of Life: You're blanking the issue. At the end of the day, Americans (who are categorised as a civilised race) tie human beings to tables and fill them full of lethal drugs.....and to rub salt into the wound they allow an audience too :eek: What does that say about a nations conscience.........simple.....they don't have one.

Can you name ANY other Western civilised country that does that? After all isn't this what civilised is all about? Perhaps that's why people are picking on America. God bless America....yeah, right. He's looking down on you and thinking: "They are still savages"....just the war paint has gone.

Capetonian
11th May 2013, 09:46
Does 'civilisation' allow people such as those who have committed the type of crime mentioned elsewhere in this and other threads to continue to live amongst the rest of us?

Putting them away permanently is an ultimately pointless and futile way of dealing with them, and a very costly one.

Putting them away for a long time and then letting them out poses the very real risk that they will re-offend, as they often do, and in any event they are hardly likely to be model citizens.

As someone else said, we put down animals which have proved that they are dangerous killers, why not the same with (so-called) human beings. Despite the many valid arguments against the death penalty, there are more for it.

gorter
11th May 2013, 10:09
Despite the many valid arguments against the death penalty, there are more for it.

Yet the huge argument against is that innocent people (including the mentally retarded in some states despite it being against those states' laws) have been and will be executed.

That is not a type of collateral damage I am willing to pay. In my opinion it is not the type of collateral damage a civilised people should be willing to pay.

ExXB
11th May 2013, 10:14
Whatever is being done in non-civilised countries, and civilised countries isn't working.

The Death Penalty is not a deterrent, Life in Prison is not a deterrent be it for 20 years, or for 50 or longer.

Many posters here are not really looking for a deterrent, they are seeking revenge.

None of this changes my view that any killing of a human being is evil.

VP959
11th May 2013, 10:16
I've been reading this thread with interest, as it highlights an issue that no society has ever found a way of dealing with humanely and effectively, namely how do you punish those who commit serious crimes without incurring a massive cost to the rest of society?

- The death penalty has some merits, but even killing one innocent person in error makes it unacceptable in my view (and there have been enough cases of wrongful conviction to support this).

- Life imprisonment (true life, not the minimal sentence called "life" in the UK) costs society far too much money - why should taxpayers have to fund keeping criminals locked up?

One of the better schemes we operated was deportation to a remote island in the Southern hemisphere. This was relatively cheap, got rid of offenders more or less permanently, but had the side effect of creating a new island nation..................

Perhaps the time is right to look upon a modern form of deportation? We have quite a few islands that were formerly inhabited and subsistence farmed. Many have no trees or raw materials that could be used to build boats for escape. I wonder what the cost would be of securing some of these uninhabited islands and just dumping life prisoners on them to look after themselves? We know that subsistence farmers managed to eke a survivable living in these places, and whether or not these lifers survived would come down to their own ability to do the same. Society would only bear the cost of perimeter security, the occupants of the island prison would have to look after themselves as best they could.

Undoubtedly some would kill each other, some would succumb to disease and conditions may not be those we ourselves would wish, but is such a scheme really any less humane than locking people up in very expensive prisons?

galaxy flyer
11th May 2013, 16:33
There is quite a bit of peer-reviewed studies showing that execution deters future murders, see Wash Post on Deterrence (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/11/AR2007061100406.html).

To be fair, lots of detractors of these studies, mostly claiming, even if there I'd deterrence, the death penalty is immoral and uncivilized. Still, there are people evil enough to disqualify them from life among us--what to do with them? Transportation would be nice, but where now Oz has being filled? That's a joke, btw. If it's a clear case of guilt, the gallows quickly. If there is substantial question life.

GF

Curious Pax
11th May 2013, 19:23
If there is substantial question life.


Sometimes insubstantial questions have interesting answers.....

The SSK
13th May 2013, 11:14
The W'pedia report on the 2002 Soham murders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soham_murders) is enlightening, particularly the section 'Huntly in prison'.

He's had boiling water thrown over him (by a quadruple murderer), had his throat slashed (by an inmate who also did away with another child-killer) and almost succeeded in a suicide attempt. One can reasonably assume that he's in a fair bit of emotional torment.

MagnusP
13th May 2013, 11:30
That is not a type of collateral damage I am willing to pay.

Convicted murderers have, on release, gone on to murder innocent people. I assume you're happy with that type of collateral damage.

gorter
13th May 2013, 11:59
That is not a type of collateral damage I am willing to pay.

Convicted murderers have, on release, gone on to murder innocent people. I assume you're happy with that type of collateral damage.

I'm not defending the current criminal reform system. I'm arguing against the death penalty. Two very different issues that shouldn't be confused with each other.

hellsbrink
13th May 2013, 17:45
And, to bring things up to date, I see the "man" (a term used VERY loosely) accused of murdering 12 year old Tia Sharp and concealing the body before lying about every aspect of that night has finally decided to ADMIT he did what he was being accused of doing.


Given that we now have someone who has admitted committing one of the most heinous crimes we can think of, the killing of a minor during some sort of sexually charged episode (we'll never know what he actually did as the body was too decomposed for any examination to be carried out), let's see who thinks that even the minimum sentence being asked for of 30 years without parole is somehow "value for money", or even "justice", when compared to a short, quick drop given that there is not only a 12 year old who had no chance of having 30 years of life ahead of her and a family that will be changed and tormented forever because of what that piece of subhuman excrement did............

The SSK
14th May 2013, 09:19
You're just asking the original question again.

'Let's see who thinks...' is a very aggressive, intimidatory way of inviting opinions different to your own, but I continue to hold to mine.

teeteringhead
14th May 2013, 10:28
30 years @ £50k (?) a year = £1.5M :eek: ($2.3M)

MagnusP
14th May 2013, 10:48
38 years costs more. See Stuart Hazell who has confessed to sexually assaulting and murdering a 12 year old girl. It's going to cost the UK taxpayer the thick end of 2 million pounds for his board and lodgings over the next 4 decades when I suspect there can be little reasonable doubt about his guilt. How would gorter deal with this one, I wonder?

The SSK
14th May 2013, 11:21
Why are you singling out Gorter, Magnus? You can take issue with me too, if you like.

Economic expediency is the worst possible justification for putting someone to death, no matter how worthless they are.

Capetonian
14th May 2013, 11:25
Would you rather see all that money spent on trying to 'rehabilitate' them while they live a cushy life then, bearing in mind that it's taxpayers' money, your money.

cockney steve
14th May 2013, 11:31
Some years ago, I read a fascinating book written by one of the last Hangmen. He was very discreetly appointed and his employer was subject to the Official Secrets act, As part of the "job" a telephone was installed....the Post Office engineer made the mistake of telling the Employer's receptionist that the hangman's 'Phone was finished.
He got the sack and she was bound by the Act , to secrecy.
Time off work was granted, for "training-sessions" and he worked with Albert Pierrpoint who was licensee of the "pity the poor Struggler" at Failsworth, Lancs.
"Jobs", IIRC, took ~3 days,- 2 men, hotel bills or accommodation (istr they sometimes stayed in prison quarters) rail-freight for the ropes, weights, pinions and other paraphanalia required to execute...3 sets sent and they "chose" which ones to use. there was a macabre fascination ,reading the clinical detatchment with which they carried out their grim duties.

his personal opinion was that "only" once had they hung someone where he wasn't convinced of their guilt. He was also certain that the hangings were politically -motivated. only certain prisons were equipped with the necessary execution facilities and these were dotted strategically around the country. Death -sentences appeared to be commuted on a random basis, but the executions appeared to follow a geographical spread, as if to remind the local villains to behave.

Well worth reading- as to wether it will sway anyone's view......

The SSK
14th May 2013, 11:36
Firstly, Capetonian, I question that the opportunity cost of incarcerating an individual for 38 years - as opposed to liquidating them - is as much as that.

But that's by the bye. As a taxpayer, I would rather object that my money was being spent on the (not insubstantial) cost of doing away with those that society (not my society, thankfully) deems worthy of liquidation.

MagnusP
14th May 2013, 11:41
Not particularly singling anyone out, SSK, it's simply that gorter had flagged that the death penalty was wrong, but so was the current system. I'd like to see solutions proposed, rather than simply finding flaws with what we have.

As for Hazell, it's NOT about economic expediency; it's simply that someone who has confessed to a heinous crime, and who has a 22-year record of other serious crimes, gets to suck at the public tit while the girl's extended family have their lives shattered. Please let us know if you think that's right, or if you can think of a solution.

Capetonian
14th May 2013, 11:45
I don't know about that cost, but my initial thought was that at £50k/year it seems quite low, if one considers the overall cost of security, housing and feeding prisoners and those that have the misfortune to have to look after them, medical services, and everything associated.

The cost of a swift execution could be very low, it's only when the farcical appeal processes are allowed that costs start to mount, and it's mostly posturing and playing for time. Where there is no room for doubt, and several such cases have ben cited in this and other threads, then that is the way to go.

You might object to your money being used for an execution, and I have to accept the validity of that, but the other side of the coin is that others, myself included, might equally object to our money being used to keep such vermin alive and in relative comfort.

PTT
14th May 2013, 12:13
someone who has confessed to a heinous crimeFalse confessions are not that uncommon, coereced or otherwise.and who has a 22-year record of other serious crimesDouble jeopardy. You can't convict him of this crime on the basis of other crimes.

Like I said, I'm not against the death penalty per se, but the penalty is so irrevocable that the standards of evidence must be set very high indeed.

ExXB
14th May 2013, 12:17
Is it a question of either/or? Locking them up for extended periods appears to be as effective a deterrent as executing. i.e. not very good.

No, I think we need to find other solutions to meet our objectives, that is if we can ever figure out what those objectives are.

Curious Pax
14th May 2013, 12:29
I find it interesting that none of the proponents of execution has seen fit to answer the question I posed a few pages back:

I always ask the same question on the death penalty - would you be prepared for yourself or those close to you be executed by mistake?

If your answer is no I can't see how you can support the death penalty, as even the most fervent supporters have acknowledged that mistakes are possible.

The SSK
14th May 2013, 12:29
Please let us know if you think that's right

Crimes tend to have victims, and serious crimes have a serious impact on their victims. Of course it's not right that the actions of one individual can shatter the lives of an extended family. Such consequenxes are part and parcel of the severity of the sentence, or should be.

However, the depiction of prison incarceration as 'sucking at the public tit' could be applied to all custodial sentences, long and short. Personally, I think prison should be not one scrap more comfortable than it needs to be, but of course 'needs' is a bit subjective. You could regard, for example, access to TV as a luxury; you could equally regard it as a constant reminder to the inmate of the loss of his freedom to live in the wider world it depicts.

And while we're at it, I'm not a great believer in 'rehabilitation', although it can happen, sometimes spectacularly. If, for example, someone developed a drug, or a process (Clockwork Orange?) which magically transformed a psychopath into a model citizen, they should still serve their full term.

PTT
14th May 2013, 12:31
If your answer is no I can't see how you can support the death penaltyMy answer is no, but I might support it in cases where the perpitrator is caught red-handed.

Mac the Knife
14th May 2013, 12:33
One of the reasons Albert Pierrepoint quit was his eventual conviction that of all the hangings that he had performed in his long career, not one had acted as a deterrent.

'Course if you're dead, you can't do it again, but on the other hand you can't be exonerated*.

Mac

:cool:

* well I s'pose you can, but its not much help.

MagnusP
14th May 2013, 13:11
Sorry, PTT, but you seem to have it a bit arse about tit there. Hazell's guilty plea was simply corroboration of significant forensic evidence, and his conviction seemed likely anyway. Nothing false about that admission of guilt.

Double jeopardy doesn't mean what you seem to think it does. It means being tried twice for the same offence. Previous convictions are not used in the trial and not presented to a jury. They are used by the sentencing judge in assessing the appropriate sentence, along with social enquiry reports, and in fact aren't revealed to the judge until after a verdict has been returned. No-one has suggested convicting him on the basis of earlier crimes, but it gives weight to the sentence.

PTT
14th May 2013, 13:26
Nothing false about that admission of guilt.You can't possibly know that. It's backed up by forensics, certainly, but there is still the slim possibility that it is false and the forensics are wrong. Conviction requires beyond reasonable doubt, not certainty. As sample size (number of trials) increases "beyond reasonable doubt" becomes more likely. Are you willing to kill someone based on a high probability?
Double jeopardy doesn't mean what you seem to think it does.Yeah, I was lazy there :P
No-one has suggested convicting him on the basis of earlier crimes, but it gives weight to the sentence. Not when the sentence is death.

MagnusP
14th May 2013, 13:37
Yes, conviction is beyond reasonable doubt. Every conviction has to be, and the trial judge explains that to the jury. However, some will just clear the hurdle and should not result in the death penalty, but some are "smoking gun" and along with a confession put the conviction WELL beyond reasonable doubt. Hazell's conviction is most unlikely to be appealed or referred back by the CCRC.

As for sentence, this recidivist will be incarcerated until he is at least 75. To what purpose? Rehabilitation seems most unlikely. He is unlikely ever to serve any useful function. What would you suggest?

Choxolate
14th May 2013, 14:43
I am opposed to the death penalty for the simple reason that I do not want to live in a country where the government has the legal right to kill its own citizens.

The alternative? Hard labour for life, and I mean HARD and I mean LIFE.

Capetonian
14th May 2013, 14:58
The alternative? Hard labour for life, and I mean HARD and I mean LIFE.

I'd go for that, but the reality is that for many reasons it would be unenforceable. So we're back to 'permanent removal'.

rgbrock1
14th May 2013, 15:50
If we in the West, for the most part, have laws which make it a crime/felony to kill someone else, where in these same laws does it make it okay for the State to do so? Is the State exempt from said laws?

And for those of a religious persuasion: if one of the "commandments" states that "thou shalt not kill" is there also an exemption here too?

Seems to me like a bunch of exemptions exist for killing someone else when it's alright to do so, but it's not okay to do so when the law - both societal and religious - state it's not.

Bit of a paradox here, eh?

hellsbrink
14th May 2013, 15:57
False confessions are not that uncommon, coereced or otherwise.

What? The piece of excrement who probably sexually abused Tia Sharp before killing her, concealing the body and then lying through his teeth about the whole episode before his arrest, then spends a week in court denying everything and VOLUNTARILY changes his plea and ADMITS he did what he is accused of and you try to bring up "false confessions"?

Are you actually being serious or are you just trying to wind everyone up?

hellsbrink
14th May 2013, 16:13
And for those of a religious persuasion: if one of the "commandments" states that "thou shalt not kill" is there also an exemption here too?

For those of a religious persuasion, all life is sacrosanct. "Thou shalt not kill" applies to every creature and not just humans.

But if a dog goes mad and starts attacking anyone and everyone, you don't try to calm it down with a squeaky toy, you shoot it, you execute it. The same rule should apply to those who behave like that "mad dog" and attack innocents for their own gratification.

And state-approved execution is hardly something that can be put in the same bracket as homicide, especially when the victim is someone who could not defend themselves and/or suffered from God-only-knows-what-sort-of-sexual-acts before the killing. State-approved executions are those where the accused has the evidence laid down in front of him/herself and in front of everyone else. The evidence is weighed and the "guilt" is apportioned. This means that the person is judged by others, and laws which approve said executions, laws which have been approved by not only those who make them but those who elect the ones who make them, state that such a person is not fit to be part of society in any way and shall be removed from it like the example of the "mad dog". A big difference when compared to the "mad dog" attacking someone or persons for reasons only known to them with the intent to achieve some sort of gratification.

Of course, we can take your argument further. You had a career in the military, and I am sure you did more than just walk around a parade ground. If you have, or were likely to face, putting a round or three into someone who was classed by your Government as the "enemy", does that not count as "State-approved Execution", except there is no trial before the execution, and is therefore as much of a paradox except this time you were the one doing, or willing to carry out, the execution. How does that make you feel, knowing that you were part of the very "state approved execution" squad that you are claiming is so wrong when it applies to those who carry out terrorist atrocities, child murders, etc, etc, etc.......

rgbrock1
14th May 2013, 16:22
hellsbrink:

The questions I posed above (or below if you sort your threads like I do with the newest up top) were theoretical/rhetorical in nature. My opinion on the death penalty is ambivalent at best. Although deep down I deplore the idea I do see some who are deserving of it. For example: had one Adam Lanza of Newtown CT lived after blowing away 20 kids and 6 adults last December I would have been all for him hanging from the end of a rope. But......

In answer to your question, yes, I did more than walk around a parade ground. (Well, I did that too!) And I did have the opportunity presented to me where I had to put a couple of 5.56mm rounds into someone's head. It was either him or me.
Did I feel bad about it afterwards? Perhaps for a split nano-second but that's about it. In essence: hell no. Whether or not he was designated as the enemy by my government is irrelevant: he was shooting at me, so I shot back. His marksmanship sucked (sort of), mine didn't.

hellsbrink
14th May 2013, 16:45
Ah, but you would not have been there to loose these 5.56 rounds had your Government not sanctioned, and approved, you being sent there to execute those it had decided were worthy of such treatment. That's the thing, everyone knows you do not go into a conflict of any kind in another country without there being deaths, and by killing those who your Government declared as "the enemy" then surely that becomes a far bigger paradox than your example regarding State-approved execution, and even more so if you are a member of the military in certain EU countries as you have the "No Death Penalty" rule whilst being willing to summarily execute A.N.Other just because someone in that very Government has stated that A.N.Other is somehow a "threat" irrespective of where he is.

So why is executing one, just because the Government says so, "ok", yet executing someone else who is clearly deserving of such treatment is not "ok" because it is somehow deemed to be "barbaric".


And I'm guessing you agree with the bit about those with religious beliefs, but I knew you would anyway. But to take that further, surely the human should face knowing he will die when compared to the "mad dog", which clearly doesn't as getting a round in the head is generally terminal rather quickly, as the human should have the morals and knowledge to know that what it wanted to do for it's own gratification is completely wrong. You see, that's what should separate us from the "animals", the knowledge that what we are doing, are about to do, or want to do is so wrong by the standards set by any sort of vaguely civilised society that said human should think twice before even thinking of taking things further. If they do not "think twice", and just act for their own gratification, no matter what that gratification is, irrespective of the knowledge that they have decided that said gratification goes against every standard of the society that they live in, then surely society, via the legal system, should have the right to ensure that said human shall NEVER be able to try to do the same again or be able to have the ability to breathe for longer than the victim(s) as there is no place in any society for certain people because of what they have done against said society.



(That last bit wasn't aimed at yourself, but hopefully I will have appeased some who have simply accused me of being "aggressive" enough so they might actually answer the question directly instead of hiding behind excuses not to do so)

rgbrock1
14th May 2013, 16:56
hellsbrink wrote:

And I'm guessing you agree with the bit about those with religious beliefs, but I knew you would anyway.

Ah, that's a negative. I am not religious and have no religion. (Unless Pantheism counts as one but it doesn't.)

And I agree that there are some who have no place in society. I just don't know if executing them is the way to go. Again, I have very mixed feelings on the issue. I see why some should be, ahem, removed from the earth. But I think that's too easy for the removed. Execution gets it over with. A nice long life in a solitary cell with no contact with the outside world? Not so nice.

G-CPTN
14th May 2013, 17:01
The piece of excrement who probably sexually abused Tia Sharp before killing her,
No doubts about it - they found a 'sex toy' with Tia's blood on it . . .

(though that might have been after her death)

hellsbrink
14th May 2013, 17:10
And I agree that there are some who have no place in society. I just don't know if executing them is the way to go. Again, I have very mixed feelings on the issue. I see why some should be, ahem, removed from the earth. But I think that's too easy for the removed. Execution gets it over with. A nice long life in a solitary cell with no contact with the outside world? Not so nice.

Which would be classed as much more "barbaric" than execution, as you psychologically torture the person convicted of something serious enough to warrant such incarceration over what is potentially a long period of time.

To bring in an analogy, if you did that to a child, adult or dog you would be, rightly, arrested and convicted of carrying out such an act. So why is "State-approved torture" any better than "State-approved execution"? Why is it now ok for the State to approve a "punishment" which is the same as something that the State has decided is illegal?


Gotta love them paradoxes........ :E

rgbrock1
14th May 2013, 17:16
Hells bells, hellsbrink. Go and drink some Belgian Ale, FFS. You're making way too much logical sense for my tastes.

Lonewolf_50
14th May 2013, 17:45
In re that commandment:

Thou shall not kill infers (from the context of that book, which addresses putting murderers to death, etc,) that the prohibition is against unlawful killing. I have to remind people to read the whole book.

The death penalty, if one is going to use Scripture as a reference, goes back to Moses and beyond, as valid and in some cases required.

An example in Deuteronomy (22: 22-25) follows:

If a man is discovered lying with a woman who is married to another, they both shall die, the man who was lying with the woman as well as the woman.i (http://www.usccb.org/bible/deuteronomy/22#05022022-i) Thus shall you purge the evil from Israel.
23If there is a young woman, a virgin who is betrothed,<a class="fnref" href="http://www.usccb.org/bible/deuteronomy/22#05022023-1">* and a man comes upon her in the city and lies with her,24you shall bring them both out to the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the young woman because she did not cry out though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor’s wife. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst.
25 But if it is in the open fields that a man comes upon the betrothed young woman, seizes her and lies with her, only the man who lay with
her shall die.

See also Exodus 21: 12-17. It's a rule.



12 Whoever strikes someone a mortal blow must be put to death. 13However, regarding the one who did not hunt another down, but God caused death to happen by his hand, I will set apart for you a place to
which that one may flee.<a name="02021014">1
4But when someone kills a neighbor after maliciously scheming to do so, you must take him even from my altar and put him to death.
15 Whoever strikes father or mother shall be put to death.
16 A kidnaper, whether he sells the person or the person is found in his possession, shall be put to death.
17Whoever curses father or mother shall be put to death.
18When men quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist, not mortally, but enough to put him in bed,
19 the one who struck the blow shall be acquitted, provided the other can get up and walk around with the help of his staff. Still, he must compensate him for his recovery time and make provision for his complete healing.
20 When someone strikes his male or female slave with a rod so that the slave dies under his hand, the act shall certainly be avenged.
From the New American Bible (http://www.usccb.org/bible/exodus/20), a notation on that commandment about "Thou Shalt Not Kill"

* [20:13 (http://www.usccb.org/bible/ex/20:13)] Kill: as frequent instances of killing in the context of war or certain crimes (see vv. 12 (http://www.usccb.org/bible/ex/20:12)–18 (http://www.usccb.org/bible/ex/20:18)) demonstrate in the Old Testament, not all killing comes within the scope of the commandment. For this reason, the Hebrew verb translated here as “kill” is often understood as “murder,” although it is in fact used in the Old Testament at times for unintentional acts of killing (e.g., Dt 4:41 (http://www.usccb.org/bible/dt/4:41); Jos 20:3 (http://www.usccb.org/bible/jos/20:03)) and for legally sanctioned killing (Nm 35:30 (http://www.usccb.org/bible/nm/35:30)). The term may originally have designated any killing of another Israelite, including acts of manslaughter, for which the victim’s kin could exact vengeance. In the present context, it denotes the killing of one Israelite by another, motivated by hatred or the like (Nm 35:20 (http://www.usccb.org/bible/nm/35:20); cf. Hos 6:9 (http://www.usccb.org/bible/hos/6:9)).

Capetonian
14th May 2013, 17:55
Child sex gang guilty of grooming and gang-raping vulnerable girls - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10057035/Child-sex-gang-guilty-of-grooming-and-gang-raping-vulnerable-girls.html)

Seven members of a child sex ring have been found guilty of forcing under age girls to commit acts of "extreme depravity".

Their victims, aged between 11 and 15, were groomed and plied with alcohol and hard drugs before being sexually assaulted and forced into prostitution.


Abuse sessions would go on for days and involve the use of knives, meat cleavers and baseball bats. One was even forced to undergo an illegal abortion at a backstreet clinic when she fell pregnant by one of her tormentors.

Two sets of brothers, Akhtar Dogar, 32, and Anjum Dogar, 31, and Mohammed Karrar, 38, and Bassam Karrar, 33, were convicted along with Kamar Jamil, 27, Assad Hussain, 32, and Zeeshan Ahmed, 27.



Read the article. I'm tempted to say these monsters they should be put to death simply for being so ugly, but that may be unfair.

So, a question for those who are opposed to the death sentence. How would you propose dealing with these people who have robbed a number of young girls of their innocence, their childhood, their respect, their health, and their sanity. This has impacted a wider audience of families, friends, carers, police, and was a pre-meditated calculated campaign conducted by these vile criminals purely for their own gratification and enrichment.

Lonewolf_50
14th May 2013, 18:00
Maybe those Ancient Hebrews weren't all wrong, Capetonian. :E

rgbrock1
14th May 2013, 18:02
Capetonian:

Judging by the culprits' names, I know how their home countries would deal with them.

However, the question was posed in general and I shall endeavor to answer.

I know my first reaction was they should all be hung. But, again, that's too quick.

How about putting each of them in a cell like this:

http://www.alternet.org/files/styles/story_image/public/story_images/solitary_confinement.jpg

And there they, and anyone like them, stay for the rest of their lives. They are not allowed out of this cell: no TV, no books, no magazines, no games, no other reading materials, no nothing. Enough food and water to survive on, but that's it. Oh, and no visitors either. In other words: you stay in this cell by yourself for the rest of your life. And you will never, ever see the outside of that cell.

I personally would much prefer seeing someone going slowly but surely stark, raving mad then hanging from the end of a noose, injected with lethal toxins or riding Old Sparky. All of which are way too quick.

hellsbrink
14th May 2013, 18:09
Can't be done, rgb.

Because you forget that "full life" sentences are illegal in the EU, along with Capital Punishment and anything else the fluffies deem to be "inhumane" whilst ignoring the small matter that those who would be facing such "inhumane" punishments gave up their right to be classed as human the second they committed the crime they would be facing "life in solitary" for.

And, again, you wouldn't do that to a dog without being arrested, charged, convicted and incarcerated, so why treat a sub-human differently by doing what you wouldn't do to a dog, why not treat him like the "mad dog" he is......

rgbrock1
14th May 2013, 18:26
hellsbrink:

Life sentences - in the true meaning of the word - may be illegal in the EU but they are NOT illegal here in the U.S. (Charles Manson, for example, would tell you the same.)

And I couldn't give a rat's ass if sticking someone in solitary confinement for the rest of their life is considered inhumane or not. It's what they deserve.

hellsbrink
14th May 2013, 18:27
Then why not save the taxpayer a small fortune by wasting a bullet on the bastard?

rgbrock1
14th May 2013, 18:33
I can think of many ways to save the taxpayer a large fortune. None of which have to do with executing, or not, someone.

Besides which: the prisons will always be there anyway. Bread and water don't cost a whole lot either.

hellsbrink
14th May 2013, 18:42
But the building, the maintenance, the staff, etc will still be there and that is where the money goes, not on the food. So by using some 5.56 rounds you can not only save the taxpayer a stinkload of money by eradicating the vermin that you would like to see rotting in a cell instead of spending a small fortune keeping them alive but also by cutting the prison population itself as the vermin wouldn't need their "solitary" cell, they wouldn't need to have guards watching them, they wouldn't need food, water, sanitation, clothing, toiletries, medical treatment, etc, etc, etc.

That means the space can be used more efficiently for the scum that don't quite warrant execution............

rgbrock1
14th May 2013, 18:47
Okay hellsbrink, I'll bite. If it's the money savings you're looking at, with the added overhead of solitary confinement, then I'll suggest that this same solitary confinement be spent not in prison but here:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5187/5635020380_16902a2ced.jpg

Anyone convicted of a crime "worthy" of a death sentence shall, instead, be flown off to an island such as the above. With just the clothes on their backs they can find their own goddamn food and seek their own goddamn shelter.

How's that then? No cost except for the flight to and from bogeyland.

And, no hellsbrink, they cannot swim from the island as the waters surrounding "Naughty Island" are infested with extremely hungry sharks.

PTT
15th May 2013, 12:09
@ MagnusPYes, conviction is beyond reasonable doubt. Every conviction has to be, and the trial judge explains that to the jury. However, some will just clear the hurdle and should not result in the death penalty, but some are "smoking gun" and along with a confession put the conviction WELL beyond reasonable doubt. Hazell's conviction is most unlikely to be appealed or referred back by the CCRC.Not far enough to warrant death, imo.
As for sentence, this recidivist will be incarcerated until he is at least 75. To what purpose? Rehabilitation seems most unlikely. He is unlikely ever to serve any useful function. What would you suggest?Exactly that: a long sentence. And they most certainly can serve a useful function.

@ hellsbrinkWhat? The piece of excrement who probably sexually abused Tia Sharp before killing her, concealing the body and then lying through his teeth about the whole episode before his arrest, then spends a week in court denying everything and VOLUNTARILY changes his plea and ADMITS he did what he is accused of and you try to bring up "false confessions"?

Are you actually being serious or are you just trying to wind everyone up? I'm not saying his confession is necessarily false, but there is that possibility, however slight we might think it is. With that possibility in mind you are still willing to kill the guy?
Do you know his plea change was voluntary? How? Do you know, for a fact (as opposed to beyond reasonable doubt) that he killed her? How? Were you there? Did you see it? The point is that, as much as it is highly likely that he did it, there is still a slim possibility that the version of events which we know about is not the version of events which happened.
And if thinking about emotive things objectively is enough to wind you up then I sincerely hope you're not involved in legal cases.

MagnusP
15th May 2013, 13:23
Exactly that: a long sentence. And they most certainly can serve a useful function.

And what precisely is that useful function? Deterrence? Nope. Reoffending rates are highest among those who have been given long sentences.

rgbrock1
15th May 2013, 13:40
MagnusP wrote:

And what precisely is that useful function?

Making license plates for car, trucks, buses, etc.

MagnusP
15th May 2013, 13:43
Kind of an expensive way to stamp out plates, though!

Can't access it from here, but yootoob has a splendid version of John Hiatt's "Tennessee Plates".

rgbrock1
15th May 2013, 13:45
when your average inmate in America earns $10 US per month, not too expensive. (Omitting, of course, the cost of housing, clothing and feeding them.)

West Coast
15th May 2013, 16:07
Hellsbrink

Seriously, life sentences are illegal in euroland?

The SSK
15th May 2013, 16:24
Seriously, life sentences are illegal in euroland?

No, they are not illegal, although some individual countries (Spain, Portugal) have abolished them. In 2007 the European Court of Human Rights specifically upheld full life sentences on 3 British lifers who lodged an appeal.

But hey, blaming the EU for things they aren't guilty of is fair play, right?

rgbrock1
15th May 2013, 16:41
I was just reading a story about a British-born schoolgirl, of Indian origin, was found murdered in India where she was vacationing/on holiday. Seems several of her internal organs are missing and it's believed that she was murdered for them. Also seems to be an "organ harvesting" problem in parts of India.

The girl was 8 years old.

Something like this certainly makes one contemplate rethinking the death penalty.

Lonewolf_50
15th May 2013, 20:17
Makes me rethink India as a tourist destination. :p