I hope no-one is ever hanged on 'strong evidence'. It would have to be absolutely rock-solid conclusive irrefutable evidence. Which doesn't exist.

Michael Stone, witnessed by hundreds of people and caught on video, caught red-handed on the scene, didn't deny anything. Irrefutable evidence which did exist.

That's just one example.

Peter Sutcliffe - irrefutable.
Fred and Rose West - irrefutable
Hindley and Brady - irrefutable
Michael Ryan and Thomas Hamilton saved the courts some time.

The best, fool-proof way to stop crime, you know Bartfarst, is for the State to just kill everyone. Then there'd be no criminals, no victims, no crimes.

Totally insane, but it would work.

StarSparkle

But my preferred solution is just to kill the criminals (and the likes of Pikeys too, that would be a bonus).

Well how can you rehabilitate a peadophile,you cant.A terrorist you cant.possibley certain accidental murders, yes you could probabley could rehabilitate. If you read my initial post right you would understand that I was being a tad facetious about the rehab thing. It's all too comfy for bad un's. Capital or corporal punishment IS a deterrent. It would certainly make me think twice

I think we should bring in the death penalty for specious reasoning. I'd be the first to throw the switch.

Ah, but Phan I'd already have had you in the Zyclon chamber for being a druggie !

The best, fool-proof way to stop crime, you know Bartfarst, is for the State to just kill everyone. Then there'd be no criminals, no victims, no crimes.

Totally insane, but it would work.

StarSparkle
What a ridiculous thing to say,take it then you are anti hanging.Well with respect you are entitled to your opinion.

Capital or corporal punishment IS a deterrent. It would certainly make me think twice
It might make you think twice Alex, but I suspect you're not a homicidally deranged crackhead, for example. If what you say were true wouldn't the United States have a demonstrably lower homicide rate than they do?

Or we could live a world with little fluffy kittens all around us and everyone could smile and hug and all the worlds problems would fade into obscurity. Unfortunately some won't play the game. Some people get away with murder to coin a phrase. There is no respect for REAL people

But my preferred solution is just to kill the criminals (and the likes of Pikeys too, that would be a bonus).

Don't you understand that for the State to take people's lives is still murder? The only difference is its State-sanctioned. Personally, I don't feel that morally, that makes any difference. It's still taking life.

Life imprisonment should mean Life imprisonment.

But the death penalty is quite simply immoral and wrong.

StarSparkle

Hanging someone is about as disrespectful as it gets in my book......

Don't you understand that for the State to take people's lives is still murder? The only difference is its State-sanctioned. Personally, I don't feel that morally, that makes any difference. It's still taking life.

Life imprisonment should mean Life imprisonment.

But the death penalty is quite simply immoral and wrong.

StarSparkle

It depends on how you see it.

I hold dearly the value of life of people who have not forfeited their human rights, but I'm afraid that I do not believe that human rights are an entitlement for all; I think they must be earned and can be given up if people choose to do awful things.

Such people have proven their lack of worth to society, are a burden and I would rather see the cost of their prison upkeep for decades spent on research of childhood illnesses or cancer.

Death is just the end of life, and if that happens to be a twisted, immoral, wicked life, I don’t have the tiniest hint of a moral problem with that.

Don't you understand that for the State to take people's lives is still murder? The only difference is its State-sanctioned. Personally, I don't feel that morally, that makes any difference. It's still taking life.

Life imprisonment should mean Life imprisonment.

But the death penalty is quite simply immoral and wrong.

StarSparkle

I absolutely agree.

Hanging someone is about as disrespectful as it gets in my book......

Gas them then, or lethal injection, firing squad, or a good stoning.

As long as we get rd of them.

Hanging someone is about as disrespectful as it gets in my book......
So is murdering a little innocent child,it cannot be right.

It might make you think twice Alex, but I suspect you're not a homicidally deranged crackhead, for example. If what you say were true wouldn't the United States have a demonstrably lower homicide rate than they do?It is a vast country with a population of almost 296 million people so obviously has a lot more homicides and the death penalty only applies to a few states now. Maybe the relaxation of the death penalty has allowed the homicide figures to boom, I don't know, but I would like to bet it has

how many people would like to be the hangman,administering the punishment.I bet there would be a right waiting list.Especially the families of the victims.

What a ridiculous thing to say,take it then you are anti hanging.Well with respect you are entitled to your opinion.

Clearly, satire goes straight over your head, MissNovak :suspect:

Perhaps I should keep it more simple in future for you?

But what I said was no more ridiculous than some of the things you and Bartfarst have come out with.

StarSparkle

As a deterrant corporal and capital punishment has no effect, there was no surge in murders when the death penalty was abolished back in the 60's.
Most murders are either not premeditated, which means no consideration for the consequences, or they are premeditated and the person thinks that they'll get away with it.

It is really a none issue anyway, because the death penalty is outlawed throughout the EU. In order to reinstate it, we would have to leave the EU - although no doubt the forum eurosceptics would not find this to be a problem at all.

I have changed my views on this subject over the years. I remember when i was at university I participated in a debate on this subject and led for the 'anti' side. Now, however, unlike Sparkle, I have no moral objections in principle to capital punishment. My views have changed because of the horrific crimes perpetrated by various vile creatures over the years (including most recently in the Mary-Ann case). However, I remain opposed to it on technical grounds, in that there have been too many miscarriages of justice for us to have absolute certainty of guilt prior to execution. I do think though that there is a strong case for introducing the kind of condign life sentences used in the US (i.e. life, with no possibility of parole)

Clearly, satire goes straight over your head, MissNovak :suspect:

Perhaps I should keep it more simple in future for you?

But what I said was no more ridiculous than some of the things you and Bartfarst have come out with.

StarSparkle

I don't see why it's ridiculous to want to clear society of murderers, paedophiles and the like so that the money spent on feeding and housing them in prison can be spent on more productive things like medical research or charities.

DEATH IS FINAL AND ABSOLUTE.

So to everyone who supports capital punishment just put your self in the position of having been wrongly accused of a criminal offence which attracted a sentence of death by hanging or similar which was then implemented.

Michael Stone, witnessed by hundreds of people and caught on video, caught red-handed on the scene, didn't deny anything. Irrefutable evidence which did exist.

That's just one example.

Peter Sutcliffe - irrefutable.
Fred and Rose West - irrefutable
Hindley and Brady - irrefutable
Michael Ryan and Thomas Hamilton saved the courts some time.

All exceptionally evil people. But Michael Stone is mentally ill, and so may be some of the others. You can't hang people for being mad, however bad their crimes might be. Lock them up away from society so they don't pose a risk, but you can't kill them. In fact, in the case of Michael Stone, there was NO forensic evidence at all. The major thing that counted against him was a confession he made to another prisoner. I'm not saying he's innocent, I'm sure he did it, but could we really take the risk of killing him?

Bartfarst Talks Straight,if A Lot Of People Dont Like It,then Tough.sometimes You Have To Tell Like It Is To Get Your Point Across. We Dont Live In Aworld Viewing It From Rose Coloured Spectacles, People Want Whats Right. An Eye For An Eye.

All exceptionally evil people. But Michael Stone is mentally ill, and so may be some of the others. You can't hang people for being mad, however bad their crimes might be. Lock them up away from society so they don't pose a risk, but you can't kill them. In fact, in the case of Michael Stone, there was NO forensic evidence at all. The major thing that counted against him was a confession he made to another prisoner. I'm not saying he's innocent, I'm sure he did it, but could we really take the risk of killing him?

Why should madness be an excuse? The mad will just cost more to look after.

As for there being no forensic evidence on Stone, have you seen the video footage? Did you miss my post saying that there were hundreds of witnesses, and that he was caught there and then, red-handed?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/16/newsid_2523000/2523953.stm

All exceptionally evil people. But Michael Stone is mentally ill, and so may be some of the others. You can't hang people for being mad, however bad their crimes might be. Lock them up away from society so they don't pose a risk, but you can't kill them. In fact, in the case of Michael Stone, there was NO forensic evidence at all. The major thing that counted against him was a confession he made to another prisoner. I'm not saying he's innocent, I'm sure he did it, but could we really take the risk of killing him?


You have your Michael Stones mixed up here. By the sound of it, Bartfarst is referring to the loyalist paramilitary who shot several people in a graveyard during an IRA funeral.

As a deterrant corporal and capital punishment has no effect, there was no surge in murders when the death penalty was abolished back in the 60's.
Most murders are either not premeditated, which means no consideration for the consequences, or they are premeditated and the person thinks that they'll get away with it. Although I am all for a more Draconian stance you have put forward a little better argument. But it is the year 2006 where murder seems to be commonplace. The 1960's was 40 years ago

It depends on how you see it.

I hold dearly the value of life of people who have not forfeited their human rights, but I'm afraid that I do not believe that human rights are an entitlement for all; I think they must be earned and can be given up if people choose to do awful things.

Such people have proven their lack of worth to society, are a burden and I would rather see the cost of their prison upkeep for decades spent on research of childhood illnesses or cancer.

Death is just the end of life, and if that happens to be a twisted, immoral, wicked life, I don’t have the tiniest hint of a moral problem with that.
You have a staggering definition of 'twisted and immoral', Bartfarst - in regarding someone who uses a class C drug as morally equivalent to a mass murderer you are utterly bizarre. Human rights apply to all. They are ore ought to be universal. The kind of state sponsored violence you propose would merely brutalise the population and breed further violence.

I don't see why it's ridiculous to want to clear society of murderers, paedophiles and the like so that the money spent on feeding and housing them in prison can be spent on more productive things like medical research or charities.

It is quite simply the right of no human being to take the life of another.

The giving and taking of Life is for God to decide, not human beings.

I realise this is idealistic, of course, but it is still the morally correct position. No individual human being or any government or any State has the right to take life. That is murder, however it gets dressed up.

StarSparkle

Why should madness be an excuse? The mad will just cost more to look after.

As for there being no forensic evidence on Stone, have you seen the video footage? Did you miss my post saying that there were hundreds of witnesses, and that he was caught there and then, red-handed?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/16/newsid_2523000/2523953.stm

Ah, wrong Michael Stone, I'm talking about the one who killed the Russells.

Madness isn't an excuse, but where do we draw the line? Killing people who are mentally ill because we aren't prepared to take measures to keep them away from society is bordering on Naziism.

You have your Michael Stones mixed up here. By the sound of it, Bartfarst is referring to the loyalist paramilitary who shot several people in a graveyard during an IRA funeral. Video evidence, and he lobbed a couple of grenades

Ah, wrong Michael Stone, I'm talking about the one who killed the Russells.

Madness isn't an excuse, but where do we draw the line? Killing people who are mentally ill because we aren't prepared to take measures to keep them away from society is bordering on Naziism.
Too flipping right it is.......

Bartfarst Talks Straight,if A Lot Of People Dont Like It,then Tough.sometimes You Have To Tell Like It Is To Get Your Point Across. We Dont Live In Aworld Viewing It From Rose Coloured Spectacles, People Want Whats Right. An Eye For An Eye.

Then, as Gandhi said, the whole world ends up being blind. Where does that get any of us?

StarSparkle

It is quite simply the right of no human being to take the life of another.
The giving and taking of Life is for God to decide, not human beings.
I realise this is idealistic, of course, but it is still the morally correct position. No individual human being or any government or any State has the right to take life. That is murder, however it gets dressed up.
StarSparkle

There is no God, any more than there are fairies at the bottom of the garden, and I'm afraid that I see twisted, sick criminals as having no use in society; worse, they are a destructive element, so why do we keep them?

We are each just a mass of cells, not some divinely wonderful thing, and if some piles of cells aren't very good to the others, we should get rid. Easy.

. Human rights apply to all. They are ore ought to be universal.

Based on this, should a gangland multiple murderer, who would willingly kill a witness to a robbery and think nothing of it, be offered the same human rights and protection by society as a law-abiding nurse or a young child?

If you can answer yes to that, you are blind to reason.

So once we cleanse the world, or the UK at any rate, of all twisted and sick criminals we can all sit back and enjoy a safe society. A few years down the line and society not being as safe as we thought perhaps we should have a cull of the slightly twisted and iffy criminals, then people who squint, or limp or look at me strangely and spill my drink.

Where do we stop?

How is it right for us to take someone's life but wrong for them to do it?

There is no God, any more than there are fairies at the bottom of the garden, and I'm afraid that I see twisted, sick criminals as having no use in society; worse, they are a destructive element, so why do we keep them?

We are each just a mass of cells, not some divinely wonderful thing, and if some piles of cells aren't very good to the others, we should get rid. Easy.

If that's truly what you believe, I feel very sorry for you. No wonder you sound so bitter and twisted in most of your posts.

StarSparkle

There is no God, any more than there are fairies at the bottom of the garden, and I'm afraid that I see twisted, sick criminals as having no use in society; worse, they are a destructive element, so why do we keep them?

We are each just a mass of cells, not some divinely wonderful thing, and if some piles of cells aren't very good to the others, we should get rid. Easy.Bartfast I'm with you . If all the do -gooders in this world had their way I think we'd be in for a tougher ride than we already have. Maybe we are wrong and lunatics , murderers and all other low life should walk amongst us and we should embrace them with brotherly or sisterly love before they turn us over

So once we cleanse the world, or the UK at any rate, of all twisted and sick criminals we can all sit back and enjoy a safe society. A few years down the line and society not being as safe as we thought perhaps we should have a cull of the slightly twisted and iffy criminals, then people who squint, or limp or look at me strangely and spill my drink.

Where do we stop?

How is it right for us to take someone's life but wrong for them to do it?Just the bad ones Max, just the bad ones

So once we cleanse the world, or the UK at any rate, of all twisted and sick criminals we can all sit back and enjoy a safe society. A few years down the line and society not being as safe as we thought perhaps we should have a cull of the slightly twisted and iffy criminals, then people who squint, or limp or look at me strangely and spill my drink.

Where do we stop?

How is it right for us to take someone's life but wrong for them to do it?

I simply fail to see why there is resistance to culling the worst of our criminals. The long-term benefits would be huge because criminals beget criminals, and we could reduce the number of active scrotes within a generation.

I simply fail to see why there is resistance to culling the worst of our criminals. The long-term benefits would be huge because criminals beget criminals, and we could reduce the number of active scrotes within a generation.

You missed my point then, if we cull the worst now what's to stop us culling the not so bad, then the not really very nice, ad infinitum?

If that's truly what you believe, I feel very sorry for you. No wonder you sound so bitter and twisted in most of your posts.

StarSparkle

I can assure you that I'm not bitter, I'm a rather buoyant happy type, I simply don't get emotional over the 'rights' of low-lives who I think should have no rights. The goodwill of some posters on the forum would be better directed at helping the genuinely needy, not standing up for the dregs of our society.

How would you answer the question I put to Halibut - should a gangland multiple murderer, who would willingly kill a witness to a robbery and think nothing of it, be offered the same human rights and protection by society as a law-abiding nurse or a young child?

You missed my point then, if we cull the worst now what's to stop us culling the not so bad, then the not really very nice, ad infinitum?

Common sense?

Based on this, should a gangland multiple murderer, who would willingly kill a witness to a robbery and think nothing of it, be offered the same human rights and protection by society as a law-abiding nurse or a young child?

If you can answer yes to that, you are blind to reason.

either they are both humans and deserve the same rights, or you are talking about having good people rights and others rights.
When someone commits a crime certain rights are taken away or restricted. But that doesn't mean that they don't deserve a fair trial in the first place, or that they should be subject to torture or to being murdered.
The state taking someones life is simply right by might, all it teaches anyone is that the organisation with the most power can make whatever rules it sees fit, but need not abide by them itself.

The resistance on my part is mainly down to the fact that we can never be sure that we have convicted the right person, and killing one inoccent person by mistake is too many.
Never mind your argument that it might save more lives in the wrong run, it's more wrong to knowingly kill the wrong person, than it is to have a theoretical risk of x other killings weighed against it.

Never mind your argument that it might save more lives in the wrong run, it's more wrong to knowingly kill the wrong person, than it is to have a theoretical risk of x other killings weighed against it.

So you are saying that, because of the way you view the situation morally, that the life of one innocent man can be worth more than the life of 6 innocent children?

Remember, If you hang the wrong man, the real culprit is still at large.

either they are both humans and deserve the same rights, or you are talking about having good people rights and others rights.
When someone commits a crime certain rights are taken away or restricted. But that doesn't mean that they don't deserve a fair trial in the first place, or that they should be subject to torture or to being murdered.
The state taking someones life is simply right by might, all it teaches anyone is that the organisation with the most power can make whatever rules it sees fit, but need not abide by them itself.The resistance on my part is mainly down to the fact that we can never be sure that we have convicted the right person, and killing one inoccent person by mistake is too many.
Never mind your argument that it might save more lives in the wrong run, it's more wrong to knowingly kill the wrong person, than it is to have a theoretical risk of x other killings weighed against it.

This has never happened before on Sheffield Forum - I find myself in 100% agreement with Cyclone!!

Well said, Cyclone.

StarSparkle

So you are saying that, because of the way you view the situation morally, that the life of one innocent man can be worth more than the life of 6 innocent children?

That isn't a valid situation or question. Taking the life of that innocent man is acheiving nothing - and is putting more innocent children at risk because the real offender is still at large whilst the police are thinking he is dead.

So you are saying that, because of the way you view the situation morally, that the life of one innocent man can be worth more than the life of 6 innocent children?

well, you did say that your numbers were meaningless anyway, and we know that nearly all murderers do not reoffend.

But making that decision is playing god (and i'm actually with you on not believing in god, so it's just a figure of speech).
We aren't responsible for the acts that other people commit, we are responsible for what we (or the state on our behalf) does.
So if we kill an innocent man, that's murder. If we don't kill several, one of whom is inoccent, and then one of the guilty ones reoffends, we still haven't committed a murder.
A proper life sentence might be a better option, although like I said, nearly all murderers never reoffend. Maybe it's the case that 15 years in jail is actually long enough to be both punished and reform.

This has never happened before on Sheffield Forum - I find myself in 100% agreement with Cyclone!!

Well said, Cyclone.

StarSparkle

I think we have agreed on this topic before.

I think we have agreed on this topic before.

Blimey, don't start an argument about agreeing!

Blimey, don't start an argument about agreeing!

They're not starting an argument about agreeing, that's next door.

But my preferred solution is just to kill the criminals (and the likes of Pikeys too, that would be a bonus).


that wouldn't work... I've seen the film (Minority Report)

PT

Originally Posted by Bartfarst
But my preferred solution is just to kill the criminals (and the likes of Pikeys too, that would be a bonus).

that wouldn't work... I've seen the film (Minority Report)

PT

Perhaps not, but in my own little fantasy world I'd like to think that all the ne'er do wells could be herded into a nice comfy chamber with a pleasantly scented gas wafting through, and afterwards we could have a society where shops don't need shutters, you don't need to lock your house doors, car insurance prices would come down becasue there'd be no theft, and everybody would bid you good morning as you walk along the pavement.

Cloud cuckoo land, obviously, but not such a bad thing to dream of.

Bartfarst Talks Straight,if A Lot Of People Dont Like It,then Tough.sometimes You Have To Tell Like It Is To Get Your Point Across. We Dont Live In Aworld Viewing It From Rose Coloured Spectacles, People Want Whats Right. An Eye For An Eye.

To tell it like it is, let us hope you are never in the position of being convicted for a crime you've never committed for an offence which leads to the death sentence in a country where the death sentence is invoked as in the case of

Emma & Chris (http://www.lovells.com/Lovells/AboutLovells/ProBono/HumanRightsProtection/Introduction.htm)

Death is absolute and irreversible.

Perhaps not, but in my own little fantasy world I'd like to think that all the ne'er do wells could be herded into a nice comfy chamber with a pleasantly scented gas wafting through, and afterwards we could have a society where shops don't need shutters, you don't need to lock your house doors, car insurance prices would come down becasue there'd be no theft, and everybody would bid you good morning as you walk along the pavement.

Cloud cuckoo land, obviously, but not such a bad thing to dream of.not such a dream once,in your grandads time, so im told

Whats everyone,s thoughts on Capital punishment.
Should there be the Death penalty? i.e Hanging,leathol injection.
Would this reduce crime, whats your views.

Not again.

Please.

Whats everyone,s thoughts on Capital punishment.
Should there be the Death penalty? i.e Hanging,leathol injection.
Would this reduce crime, whats your views.

No
No and those who think it would explain the crime rate in the USA please in states with it?

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=3425

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=665

This subject has been debated so many times on the forum.

yes for murder, if can be proven 101% and a whole wealth of undisputable evidence is submitted.

WTF should I pay for them to work out and watch telly all day?

threads merged, please search before posting,
thankyou

The death penalty should only be brought back for those people whom the tabloids have pronounced guilty.:loopy:

The death penalty should only be brought back for those people whom the tabloids have pronounced guilty.:loopy:

Well, that would be a start - after all, the tabloids are always right.:thumbsup:

Should the death penalty be reintroduced?

For murders like the stabbing of Daniel Pollen where there is clear and undeniable proof of who did it should they be executed?

With all the CCTV equipment around now, for cases where you have video evidence of someone murdering someone would you agree to them being executed?

For myself I think if there is video evidence that proves beyond all doubt that they are guilty they should be executed, if there is doubt then I'm not so sure...

Should the death penalty be reintroduced?

For murders like the stabbing of Daniel Pollen where there is clear and undeniable proof of who did it should they be executed?

With all the CCTV equipment around now, for cases where you have video evidence of someone murdering someone would you agree to them being executed?

For myself I think if there is video evidence that proves beyond all doubt that they are guilty they should be executed, if there is doubt then I'm not so sure...

Nope, In a word.

IMO I think if somebody is guilty beyond all boubt then yes, why spend thousands of £'s of OUR money keeping the scum alive and in some cases a lot better off than sum folkes (I mean with food, shelter and TV etc)

Should the death penalty be reintroduced?

For murders like the stabbing of Daniel Pollen where there is clear and undeniable proof of who did it should they be executed?

With all the CCTV equipment around now, for cases where you have video evidence of someone murdering someone would you agree to them being executed?

For myself I think if there is video evidence that proves beyond all doubt that they are guilty they should be executed, if there is doubt then I'm not so sure...


I'm all for the death penalty, especially after reading about the 12 week old baby!

similar threads merged, please search before posting

similar threads merged, please search before posting

Apologies em3978 :)

Why do people get so caught up in luvviness and human rights?

People who murder, abuse children, rape, commit violent robbery, or repeatedly steal from others should be removed from society, permanently and at minimum cost.

No expensive procedures, just slot a round into the back of the head and use them as animal feed - so for once in their lives (or after) they can be of use.

Why do people get so caught up in luvviness and human rights?

People who murder, abuse children, rape, commit violent robbery, or repeatedly steal from others should be removed from society, permanently and at minimum cost.

No expensive procedures, just slot a round into the back of the head and use them as animal feed - so for once in their lives (or after) they can be of use.

Totally agree Bartfarst. I'd liven it up more by saying that anyone who cannot keep to the law should also be put down. I read of ppl (daily!!) who have over 20 convictions for theft. These should have been put down long ago. In fact, constant breach of an ASBO should result in the same :thumbsup:

I know many will disagree but society would dramatically improve :D

Why do people get so caught up in luvviness and human rights?

People who murder, abuse children, rape, commit violent robbery, or repeatedly steal from others should be removed from society, permanently and at minimum cost.

No expensive procedures, just slot a round into the back of the head and use them as animal feed - so for once in their lives (or after) they can be of use.

:shocked:

I'm in agreement with the Chief Firum Troll!, :help:

Well sort of, I don't agree with using them as animal feed... But I do agree that life should MEAN life... If someone gets a life stretch at Her Majesty's Pleasure, it should mean that they remain in Prison for the rest of their natural life, not just go down for 8 years and be out in 4 or less on Parole! :rant:

I also agree with Capital Punishment for Murderersm and IMHO Rapists, especially Child Rapists, should be forced to have compulsory vasectomies (Get their bits chopped off).

:shocked:

I'm in agreement with the Chief Firum Troll!, :help:

Well sort of, I don't agree with using them as animal feed... But I do agree that life should MEAN life... If someone gets a life stretch at Her Majesty's Pleasure, it should mean that they remain in Prison for the rest of their natural life, not just go down for 8 years and be out in 4 or less on Parole! :rant:

I also agree with Capital Punishment for Murderersm and IMHO Rapists, especially Child Rapists, should be forced to have compulsory vasectomies (Get their bits chopped off).
Okay, I agree with you on one condition - my dog can have the bits that get chopped off, because he loves 'bull's twizzels' from the pet shop, but they're expensive!

There are no plans to debate capital punishment in Parliament and I do not think that the death penalty will be brought back in this country ...ever:thumbsup:

There are no plans to debate capital punishment in Parliament and I do not think that the death penalty will be brought back in this country ...ever:thumbsup:
That's because we have a loud minority of misguided interfering do-gooders who would rather see a serial murderer, paedophile or rapist walk free to do it again than be hanged.

Personally, I value the rights of the victims more than the criminals - but then I'm an old-fashioned right-winger - heaven forbid that we should protect the innocents from the violent dregs of society. That must be a fascist view!

can't be arsed to read 25 pages but without a shadow of a doubt for certain cases yes there should indeed be a death penalty

I would love to see the death penalty in this country if the justice system was fool proof, but its not, there can never be a 100% certainty that the right decision has been made as to someones guilt unfirtunately, otherwise I would be all for it.

Fair comment, sometimes they do get it wrong... More's the pity... Rven if they don't bring back Capital punishment though, I would still like to see life MEAN life for Murderers etc... Not just send them down for 10 years and let them out in 5 on Parole or whatever.

That's because we have a loud minority of misguided interfering do-gooders who would rather see a serial murderer, paedophile or rapist walk free to do it again than be hanged.

Personally, I value the rights of the victims more than the criminals - but then I'm an old-fashioned right-winger - heaven forbid that we should protect the innocents from the violent dregs of society. That must be a fascist view!

Not a fascist...just a one dimensional troll:rolleyes:

yes...the death penalty should be brought back....and they can start with all those plebs on big brother...including davina and that bloke with the geordie accent...in fact....especially him with the accent!!!!!

and include all that audience that stands outside when they get voted off...im sure its the same lot what were on noel edmonds house party

Not a fascist...just a one dimensional troll:rolleyes:
There we go again - don't like the view posted so you make troll accusations.

Can't you expand you mind, just a tiny bit, and take on the concept that some people's views might differ greatly from yours?

Should we reintroduce capital punishment?
Short answer - no.
Why not?
a) It's immoral
b) Innocent people will be exucuted
c) It has no deterrent effect
d) It debases the value of human life

Should we reintroduce capital punishment?
Short answer - no.
Why not?
a) It's immoral
b) Innocent people will be exucuted
c) It has no deterrent effect
d) It debases the value of human life


I agree with b and partially agree with c, disagree with the rest.

I agree with b and partially agree with c, disagree with the rest.

I see it like this Spyro ....if we are saying that it's wrong to kill someone -which is why murder is a crime - I don't see how it can be any less wrong just because the state says it's OK.

The guy who kills a guy because he's been messing with his wife, for example, might feel completely justified in hacking his love rival to death with a sword...but it doesn't make it right.

Like wise if we have capital punishment, and hang the guy who killed the guy...it's just a larger group of people doing what they think is Ok.
But is isn't. It's wrong to kill.

Should we reintroduce capital punishment?
Short answer - no.
Why not?
a) It's immoral
In some people's eyes, not in others. Do you also disagree with a nation defending itself in war? Is the death inflicted by a nation defending its own existence against an oppressive tyrant regime also immoral? Was it immoral to resist the Nazis?
b) Innocent people will be exucuted
Very, very few. What is for sure is that the number of innocent people who won't be killed by re-offending criminals will be significant.
Anybody whose moral high ground would rather see a dozen innocents murdered than one innocent man hang needs help.
Once a violent criminal always a violent criminal, hardly any are rehabilitated.
c) It has no deterrent effect
That is very debateable. Even if it were true, public hangings would soon sort that out.
d) It debases the value of human life
And just what is the value of human life? A doctor, schoolteacher, tax-paying law-abiding worker of any kind has a life of value.
Thieves, murderers, rapists, paedophiles and terrorists cannot be of the same worth as good law abiding people. They have chosen to opt out of the human race, so they should not be allowed 'human' rights.
You can't debase the value of the valueless dregs of society.

http://www.innocent.org.uk/news/#bradleyallardyce.

The death penalty must never ever be brought back .

Bradley Alldordyce,Michael Brown,Derek Christian,Dai Morris,Kevin lane.

The above are all serving life terms for murder .Some are now going to the appeal courts due to the evidence given as being unsafe .Those men if proved to be wrongly convicted would now be dead .To many innocent people are at this moment serving long terms in prison for crimes they did not commit .What if it was your Son,Daughter,Husband or wife wrongly accused of murder.I don't thing many people on this thread would be so keen to bring back the death penalty.

http://www.innocent.org.uk/news/#bradleyallardyce.

The death penalty must never ever be brought back .

Bradley Alldordyce,Michael Brown,Derek Christian,Dai Morris,Kevin lane.

The above are all serving life terms for murder .Some are now going to the appeal courts due to the evidence given as being unsafe .Those men if proved to be wrongly convicted would now be dead .To many innocent people are at this moment serving long terms in prison for crimes they did not commit .What if it was your Son,Daughter,Husband or wife wrongly accused of murder.I don't thing many people on this thread would be so keen to bring back the death penalty.
Don't be so naive.
Unsafe convictions mean that the due process was flawed and that the scrotes get off - like the Guildford 4 and Biringham 6. Still as guilty as sin, but they get off and proclaim their innocence. Don't know how they have the gall.

Don't be so naive.
Unsafe convictions mean that the due process was flawed and that the scrotes get off - like the Guildford 4 and Biringham 6. Still as guilty as sin, but they get off and proclaim their innocence. Don't know how they have the gall.

Don't be so naive yerself!

Thats a wild and frankly preposterous claim you're making here, have you got any evidence that can point to the guilt of the Birmingham 6? Do you know the slightest thing about that bombing? What can you tell us that isnt already known? Do you even know what an 'unsafe conviction is'?

More total rubbish from you again. Dont know how YOU have the gall

Don't be so naive.
Unsafe convictions mean that the due process was flawed and that the scrotes get off - like the Guildford 4 and Biringham 6. Still as guilty as sin, but they get off and proclaim their innocence. Don't know how they have the gall.

I am not being naive ,i am starting my opinion .I don't care what you say or think .If you have ever been wrongly accused of something you didn't and punished for it ,then you would soon change your tune.And as usual your talking ********

That is very debateable. Even if it were true, public hangings would soon sort that out.
And just what is the value of human life? A doctor, schoolteacher, tax-paying law-abiding worker of any kind has a life of value.
Thieves, murderers, rapists, paedophiles and terrorists cannot be of the same worth as good law abiding people. They have chosen to opt out of the human race, so they should not be allowed 'human' rights.
You can't debase the value of the valueless dregs of society.

I'll just deal with the two more straightforward points for now.
Public hangings would clearly not sort it out. We used to have those here remember? Did we have a crime free society? Of course we didn't.

The value of human life? In my worldview, all human life has intrinsic value and all people are due a measure of respect.
You clearly don't share this view, which saddens, but doesn't surprise me.
Thieves, murders, rapists etc haven't 'chosen to opt out of the human race'
They've done some bad things. A man who's killed a man is still a man. A rapist is still a man. A terrorist is still a man. Human beings Bartfarst.

Don't be so naive yerself!

Thats a wild and frankly preposterous claim you're making here, have you got any evidence that can point to the guilt of the Birmingham 6? Do you know the slightest thing about that bombing? What can you tell us that isnt already known? Do you even know what an 'unsafe conviction is'?

More total rubbish from you again. Dont know how YOU have the gall
Yes, I do happen to know about the Birmngham 6. I know a lot about that bombing, and many more, because I worked for years with the security services in Northern Ireland. Do you know much about it? I suspected not.

It would seem that another Forum armchair expert needs to have 'been there' before they comment :rolleyes:

Please, do tell us more about it, and about 'unsafe convictions'. I'm dying to hear.

all human life has intrinsic value and all people are due a measure of respect.
You clearly don't share this view, which saddens, but doesn't surprise me.
Thieves, murders, rapists etc haven't 'chosen to opt out of the human race'
They've done some bad things. A man who's killed a man is still a man. A rapist is still a man. A terrorist is still a man. Human beings Bartfarst.
Human is just a word.

Bunches of cells, bone and fluid that just happen to walk on two legs and be able to talk shouldn't be excused their failings.

If there's a problem with that it is that we're all caught up with looking after the poor, under-valued, abused criminals of this world. Would you believe, some Draconians actually think we should jail them???

Dead criminals don't re-offend. Live ones do - almost to a man.

.What if it was your Son,Daughter,Husband or wife wrongly accused of murder.I don't thing many people on this thread would be so keen to bring back the death penalty.
That has happened, and people have been struck by lightning.

Back in the real world (try it, it's not that bad), the scenario you paint is far, far, more likely to be that in which your relative is killed by a released former killer. Ak the people who have lost loved ones to released killers if they would agree with the death penalty.

Yes, I do happen to know about the Birmngham 6. I know a lot about that bombing, and many more, because I worked for years with the security services in Northern Ireland. Do you know much about it? I suspected not.

It would seem that another Forum armchair expert needs to have 'been there' before they comment :rolleyes:

Please, do tell us more about it, and about 'unsafe convictions'. I'm dying to hear.

So then, tell me exactly what you know about the 6 men who got life sentences for that crime, giving some kind of insight into each mans links to Irish Republicanism and their part in the bombing.

I expect to see a reasonable degree of supporting evidence before I consider taking you seriously, not least because your above referencesto me personally are entirely pre-judged and without any kind of knowledge about me at all.

Then, and only then, I might tell you what knowledge I have. But hey, I'm not the one making crazy truth-free evidence-untroubled claims. So I'll ask the questions for now. You just concentrate on dazzling us all with your vast expertise (having worked with - not for - the security services in Northern Ireland - did you deliver their pizzas?:D ).

Yeah, lets kill some people

That has happened, and people have been struck by lightning.

Back in the real world (try it, it's not that bad), the scenario you paint is far, far, more likely to be that in which your relative is killed by a released former killer. Ak the people who have lost loved ones to released killers if they would agree with the death penalty.

Wrong again. Your relative is more likely to be killed by someone known to them. Whether they are a 'released former killer' is entirely irrelevant, except maybe to people like you.

For someone who claims to have been a UN aid worker and part of the UK security services, your grasp of the real world is rather erratic isnt it?
~I'm beginning to have reservations about these claims, myself. you sound like a bit of a been there done this learnt nowt gob****e to be honest?

So then, tell me exactly what you know about the 6 men who got life sentences for that crime, giving some kind of insight into each mans links to Irish Republicanism and their part in the bombing.
I expect to see a reasonable degree of supporting evidence before I consider taking you seriously, not least because your above referencesto me personally are entirely pre-judged and without any kind of knowledge about me at all.
Whatever I say, I’m sure you’ll come up with a repeat along the lines of your earlier “More total rubbish from you again”. If you think I can be arsed to research for you to dismiss it, think again.

Then, and only then, I might tell you what knowledge I have. But hey, I'm not the one making crazy truth-free evidence-untroubled claims. So I'll ask the questions for now.
Too cryptic for me – I’m not playing mystery games – either say what you have to say or wind your neck in.

You just concentrate on dazzling us all with your vast expertise (having worked with - not for - the security services in Northern Ireland - did you deliver their pizzas?:D ).
Ok, ‘for’ if you prefer. I served out there for two and a half years. Military, uniformed and plain clothed. Good exposure to the big int picture. Interesting times. Still in the mob and may yet go back there. Put that in your pipe and smoke it :thumbsup:

That has happened, and people have been struck by lightning.



Quoted from 'Science@Nasa online' -

'The National Weather Service publication Storm Data recorded 3,239 deaths and 9,818 injuries from lightning strikes between 1959 and 1994'

Yes Bartfarst, people do get struck by lightning. Quite a lot.

Wrong again. Your relative is more likely to be killed by someone known to them. Whether they are a 'released former killer' is entirely irrelevant, except maybe to people like you.

For someone who claims to have been a UN aid worker and part of the UK security services, your grasp of the real world is rather erratic isnt it?
~I'm beginning to have reservations about these claims, myself. you sound like a bit of a been there done this learnt nowt gob****e to be honest?
For goodness' sake.

For starters, I never said I was an aid worker - I wouldn’t do that for all the tea in china. I was a military observer, working to reintegrate the rebel factions, monitor the local army and police, and survey mining and smuggling operations.. I couldn’t be doing with all that sickly do-gooding helping hungry babies rubbish. I’ve been questioned before by one of the Forum’s armchair generals and proved my credentials by PM so let’s not waste time on that one.

As for the ‘wrong again’. No, I’m not – re-read the post, and you’ll see that you’ve screwed up. I didn’t say that people were more likely to be killed by released killers than by someone known to them. What I said (and I’ve had my dog look over this and can confirm that he understood) was that it is more likely for a released killer to kill than it is for an innocent man to be hanged for killing. So, on balance, it’s worth hanging the odd innocent man to save a greater number of victims of released murderers.

Quoted from 'Science@Nasa online' -

'The National Weather Service publication Storm Data recorded 3,239 deaths and 9,818 injuries from lightning strikes between 1959 and 1994'

Yes Bartfarst, people do get struck by lightning. Quite a lot.
I was waiting for that one. Shame there's nothing less pedantic to come from your side of the argument.

Is there anybody on the Forum who is able to produce any credible evidence of the death penalty having a deterrent effect?

Whatever I say, I’m sure you’ll come up with a repeat along the lines of your earlier “More total rubbish from you again”. If you think I can be arsed to research for you to dismiss it, think again.

Too cryptic for me – I’m not playing mystery games – either say what you have to say or wind your neck in.

Ok, ‘for’ if you prefer. I served out there for two and a half years. Military, uniformed and plain clothed. Good exposure to the big int picture. Interesting times. Still in the mob and may yet go back there. Put that in your pipe and smoke it :thumbsup:

Yes I will, and I'll also continually ask you to provide evidence that can suitably back up your claims. Which you'll refuse to do and dismiss it as something you find trivial, when in fact you're simply hiding from the simple fact that you cant substantiate any of the total rhubarb you continually post, most likely cos you're simply......wrong.


look up the definition of cryptic. What I have to say is all there and easy enough to understand.

Interesting. Several of my family members were particularly active in the campaign to free these guys, and played a part in campaigning for the release of several others imprisoned for being Irish in the wrong place at the wrong time. My knowledge of the case will contrast very attractively with yours. Ready when you are.

oh, and back to the thread, the death penalty. Absolutely wrong. Never worked before. Wont work again. Evidence for this scattered all over the public domain

lets throw a bomb.

today the appeal court judged to extend the minimum sentance of a man who raped a two week old baby.

the police found a substantial amount of child porn along with several diaries containing written fantasies of taboo acts amongst which this was detailed.

in other words a man convicted beyond a shadow of a doubt of commiting a premeditated rape on a two week old baby.

somebody explain to me why this 'person' should be permitted to stay alive

lets throw a bomb.

today the appeal court judged to extend the minimum sentance of a man who raped a two week old baby.

the police found a substantial amount of child porn along with several diaries containing written fantasies of taboo acts amongst which this was detailed.

in other words a man convicted beyond a shadow of a doubt of commiting a premeditated rape on a two week old baby.

somebody explain to me why this 'person' should be permitted to stay alive

Easy. State-sponsored death is the easiest wa\y out for him. A life sentence (life - not 10-15 stretch) is a far more suitable punishment. Neither prisoners nor warders are too keen on nonces. He'll be watching his back for the rest of his life.

Most high-profile killers/paedos would rather be dead than doing a life stretch. some got what they wanted (Fred West, Shipman), some have tried and failed (Brady, Huntley). Dont give them what they want

tortue! lashings:D

No but life should mean life for certain crimes not just high publicity crimes either.

Easy. State-sponsored death is the easiest wa\y out for him. A life sentence (life - not 10-15 stretch) is a far more suitable punishment. Neither prisoners nor warders are too keen on nonces. He'll be watching his back for the rest of his life.

Most high-profile killers/paedos would rather be dead than doing a life stretch. some got what they wanted (Fred West, Shipman), some have tried and failed (Brady, Huntley). Dont give them what they want
I can't argue with the logic behind that - it would be many years of being a pariah, social rejection even within the prison system.

However, who funds the cost of life prisoners? We, the tax payers do.
40 years behind bars could add up to over a million pounds cost to the taxpayer. I'd rather the NHS paid another doctor or nurse for those 40 years than the prison service feed and shelter somebody who does not deserve life.

Should we reintroduce capital punishment?
Short answer - no.
Why not?
a) It's immoral
b) Innocent people will be exucuted
c) It has no deterrent effect
d) It debases the value of human life

With (b), even if there is damning evidence that proves beyond all doubt (Such as CCTV showing them commiting the crime)?

Is there anybody on the Forum who is able to produce any credible evidence of the death penalty having a deterrent effect?

At the risk of sounding sarcastic (Which I'm not being :) ) The person isn't going to do it again are they?

At the risk of sounding sarcastic (Which I'm not being :) ) The person isn't going to do it again are they?
A view I share.

At the risk of sounding sarcastic (Which I'm not being :) ) The person isn't going to do it again are they?

No of course, not but you're misunderstanding the meaning of deterrence. I'm talking about the way in which capital punishment won't deter others from committing murder.
Re your point about evidence; CCTV is certainly not wholly reliable. The number of miscarriages of justice which were based on evidence that seemed 'foolproof' at the time is rather alarming.

A view I share.

It won't deter others though will it? That was the point I was making as you're probably quite well aware.

I agree with bringing the death penalty back for murderers and sex offenders ONLY.. Why stick them in prison at our expense . The others who have commited a crime then i dont agree with the death penalty only a sentencing.

Look at Brady and Hindley, they should have been both put to death.
When there is no mistake in the trial, and for when there is proof of a rape or other sex attack like that 12 week old baby then my answer to the death penalty is YES.

It won't deter others though will it? That was the point I was making as you're probably quite well aware.
Quite true, you rumbled me there.

In many of the countries that hands are chopped off for theft, there is very, very little petty theft.

In the countries where the death penalty is given for drug offences, they have an awful lot less problems than we do.

In many of the countries that hands are chopped off for theft, there is very, very little petty theft.

.
And they are not known for famous guitarists, violin & trombone players either :hihi:

With (b), even if there is damning evidence that proves beyond all doubt (Such as CCTV showing them commiting the crime)?
But every case is unlikely to have such incontravertible evidence. For every case which has CCTV evidence showing the accused wielding a blood-stained machete, there will be many, many more where the evidence is far from being so (apparently) straightforward.

In addition, one need only look at the number of miscarraiges of justice in which the convictions were based on supposedly infallible evidence to realise that it is entirely feasible that innocent people might be convicted and sentenced to death.

It won't deter others though will it? That was the point I was making as you're probably quite well aware.

I stand rumbled as well! :)

But every case is unlikely to have such incontravertible evidence. For every case which has CCTV evidence showing the accused wielding a blood-stained machete, there will be many, many more where the evidence is far from being so (apparently) straightforward.

In addition, one need only look at the number of miscarraiges of justice in which the convictions were based on supposedly infallible evidence to realise that it is entirely feasible that innocent people might be convicted and sentenced to death.

But if they exercised the death penalty option only when they had the accused fully in view and without a doubt holding that machete there wouldn't be any margin for error would there? If there was any doubt I agree that they should just lock them away (Life meaning life as I read earlier) but if the proof is there 100% no doubt they should be executed.

But if they exercised the death penalty option only when they had the accused fully in view and without a doubt holding that machete there wouldn't be any margin for error would there? If there was any doubt I agree that they should just lock them away (Life meaning life as I read earlier) but if the proof is there 100% no doubt they should be executed.
From a practical perspective, if the death penalty was reintroduced for murder, then a jury-decided murder conviction would presumably carry a mandatory death penalty, as certain offences today carry a mandatory life sentence. The evidence presented would presumably be strong enough for a conviction of murder beyond reasonable doubt and as such the sentencing would be dictated by the verdict and the appropriate statute.

On a personal level, I believe that taking a life is morally wrong, a view with which you are more than welcome to disagree.

the police made out that there was incontavertible evidence against atefan Kishku, the chap convicted for teh rape and murde of13 yr old Lesley Moleseed.
what the police force involved in that case did, was, they witheld evidence that was proof that Mr Kishku could not possibly have been the culprit.

the murderer was a male, who was "potent", IE he had sperm in his semen, whereas mr Kishku had a genetic problem whereby he did not produce sperm, so his semen was "firing blanks", a simple test that could have easily ruled him out as the culprit, but instead, it was witheld, and he served 18 years for a crime he did not commit.

and he's just one of the people who were wrongly convicted, who could not have been resurrected had they been Put to death.

I support the DP in theory, but in practice, it's unworkable. also, I would disagree that it is a deterrant, as there are plenty of places (countries, states) which have the death penalty in place, and it's done nothing to reduce the murder / serious crime rates.

PT

lets throw a bomb.

today the appeal court judged to extend the minimum sentance of a man who raped a two week old baby.

the police found a substantial amount of child porn along with several diaries containing written fantasies of taboo acts amongst which this was detailed.

in other words a man convicted beyond a shadow of a doubt of commiting a premeditated rape on a two week old baby.

somebody explain to me why this 'person' should be permitted to stay alive

I say, just put him in a room with childs parents for half an hour, and give the kids parents a weapon of somekind - whatever happens in te following 30 mins are his punishment....

Because killing people is wrong.

I say, just put him in a room with childs parents for half an hour, and give the kids parents a weapon of somekind - whatever happens in te following 30 mins are his punishment....
And if the death penalty was available at that time, then presumably the child's parents should receive it too for murdering the offender?

I have to declare a personal split on this one. The reactionary in me says yes, bring it back - those nasty buggers deserve it.

However, the liberal in me stops me in my tracks and says that there will inevitably be gross mistakes that nothing can ever put right after the syringe has plunged. Life is not the Courts right to take, and two wrongs don't make a right when it comes to criminal justice.

So, as ever I find myself sitting on the fence with a broad compromise.
- Give the Police the tools to do the job and remove the stranglehold of PACE.
- Get rid of the CPS and make the Police and ultimately the House of Lords responsible for prosecutions.
- Introduce genuine life sentences for the worst crimes with release on death.
- Reorganise prisons so that they become places of work as well as detention, with the priority on community duties (with proper training) from road building to street cleaning to elderly care to mailbags. Dignity through work and rehabilitation through dignity. (What a great slogan - quite Orwelian! :))

That has happened, and people have been struck by lightning.

Back in the real world (try it, it's not that bad), the scenario you paint is far, far, more likely to be that in which your relative is killed by a released former killer. Ak the people who have lost loved ones to released killers if they would agree with the death penalty.

That's the problem with you BF your world is total fantasy, What with your Royal connections and all. You'll be telling every one you were a spy for MI5
next or is it MFI .

I have to declare a personal split on this one. The reactionary in me says yes, bring it back - those nasty buggers deserve it.

However, the liberal in me stops me in my tracks and says that there will inevitably be gross mistakes that nothing can ever put right after the syringe has plunged. Life is not the Courts right to take, and two wrongs don't make a right when it comes to criminal justice.

So, as ever I find myself sitting on the fence with a broad compromise.
- Give the Police the tools to do the job and remove the stranglehold of PACE.
- Get rid of the CPS and make the Police and ultimately the House of Lords responsible for prosecutions.
- Introduce genuine life sentences for the worst crimes with release on death.
- Reorganise prisons so that they become places of work as well as detention, with the priority on community duties (with proper training) from road building to street cleaning to elderly care to mailbags. Dignity through work and rehabilitation through dignity. (What a great slogan - quite Orwelian! :))

Tony for Prime Minister! :clap: With JoeP as Deputy PM!

And no, I am not just arse kissing here, I genuinely agree with what Tony's saying.

hiya i think they should bring it back for child killers as they take the childs life get locked up come out and get on with their lifes but the child cant

Tony for Prime Minister! :clap: With JoeP as Deputy PM!

*Tony kisses a baby and takes a bow :hihi: *

*Tony kisses a baby and takes a bow :hihi: *

You have found a fan at last Tony.........:thumbsup:

In many of the countries that hands are chopped off for theft, there is very, very little petty theft.

In the countries where the death penalty is given for drug offences, they have an awful lot less problems than we do.

Completely unfounded statement, Bartfarst. If you're going to present opinions, fair enough, but if you expect this to be taken as some kind of factual statement some evidence would be handy.

hiya i think they should bring it back for child killers as they take the childs life get locked up come out and get on with their lifes but the child cant

What about people who kill very old people who were nearly dead anyway?

What about people who kill very old people who were nearly dead anyway?

:loopy: :rant:

Killing is killing, regardless of the age of the victim... :rant:

What about people who kill very old people who were nearly dead anyway?

Easy to ask questions Halibut......what about people who kill very old people who were nearly dead anyway? Feel free to answer rather than question.........:)

Completely unfounded statement, Bartfarst. If you're going to present opinions, fair enough, but if you expect this to be taken as some kind of factual statement some evidence would be handy.

Similarly, some evidence from you to counter the statement would be rather handy, don't you think?

Easy to ask questions Halibut......what about people who kill very old people who were nearly dead anyway? Feel free to answer rather than question.........:)

Irony, shoeshine. I was attempting, perhaps unsuccesfully, to point out that allkilling is wrong, regardless of who the victim is - child, Grandmother, whoever.

Similarly, some evidence from you to counter the statement would be rather handy, don't you think?

shoeshine I've no wish to get into a circular argument here, but if it was Bartfarst's assertion that are less drug related problems in the countries that have capital punishment for drug relates crime then I think he ought to provide some evidence for it , not me.

Irony, shoeshine. I was attempting, perhaps unsuccesfully, to point out that allkilling is wrong, regardless of who the victim is - child, Grandmother, whoever.

So..............:)

So..............:)
I don't understand the point you're trying to make here, Shoeshine. Which bit of Halibut's statement did you not understand?

So..............:)

So, if all killing is wrong, we shouldn't have capital punishment.


Killing = wrong

Capital punishment = killing , killing is wrong , etc, etc, etc

So, if all killing is wrong, we shouldn't have capital punishment.


Killing = wrong

Capital punishment = killing , killing is wrong , etc, etc, etc
Is that clear enough? ;)

I think that if the person is found 100% guilty of the crime and there is no shadow of a doubt, than they should be sentenced to death.

Why should my taxes pay to keep murderers, rapists, paedophiles and such like alive and comfy in their prison cells?????

I don't think 'petty' criminals should be subject to death, just the more 'extreme' crimes, involving children, old pple etc etc.

Like when you hear about 90-year ladies being beaten to death for a fish-n-chip supper.

I think that if the person is found 100% guilty of the crime and there is no shadow of a doubt, than they should be sentenced to death.

Why should my taxes pay to keep murderers, rapists, paedophiles and such like alive and comfy in their prison cells?????
If a jury found someone guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt, and the death sentence was mandatory for murder, it would presumably be carried out. Not all jury convictions are based on evidence which is 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt. As such, it is likely that innocent people could be sentenced to death.

I think that if the person is found 100% guilty of the crime and there is no shadow of a doubt, than they should be sentenced to death.

Why should my taxes pay to keep murderers, rapists, paedophiles and such like alive and comfy in their prison cells?????

Because if you accept that it's immoral to kill -which is why we want a sanction against killers - then it's wrong to kill. Have you ever been locked up?
It always strikes me as being rather odd when people make the assumption that to be deprived of one's liberty is a 'comfy' experience...

Everytime I think some depraved child molester and murderer should be castrated and have their bo**ocks fed to them before being being shot I utter this mantra

stefankishko stefankishko stefankishko stefankishko

and my blood lust abates

Everytime I think some depraved child molester and murderer should be castrated and have their bo**ocks fed to them before being being shot I utter this mantra

stefankishko stefankishko stefankishko stefankishko

and my blood lust abates

Good point taxman; I think a lot of people would do well to bear that case in mind. I wonder also where those of us that so readily clamour for the return of the rope would draw the line? What about the guy who fells a bloke with a single punch causing his victim to crack his skull on the pavement and die? Or the mentally ill or learning disabled who kill. Our American friends have a fairly strong track record of executing (mostly poor and black, but that's another story) people who's intellect is in the range of children's.
Wasn't Mr Kisko intellectually impaired - and thus less able to defend himself against the law?

Good point taxman; I think a lot of people would do well to bear that case in mind. I wonder also where those of us that so readily clamour for the return of the rope would draw the line? What about the guy who fells a bloke with a single punch causing his victim to crack his skull on the pavement and die? Or the mentally ill or learning disabled who kill. Our American friends have a fairly strong track record of executing (mostly poor and black, but that's another story) people who's intellect is in the range of children's.
Wasn't Mr Kisko intellectually impaired - and thus less able to defend himself against the law?

Even worse was that ex home secretary Waddington who DEFENDED Kishko believed so much in his guilt that he got the poor guy to admit to doing the crime but then claimed it was caused by his medication.

Exactly, hence my point about the poor, the insane and the mentally impaired. It's the thin end of the wedge, and as I've said here before, it devalues human life if we seek to punish the killers with death.

It may be a little simplistic, but it puts me in mind of that situation where you have a naughty child who's hit it's little brother/sister, whoever.

Cue irate parent - 'Now then you little so-and-so'- who then proceeds to thrash the child in an absurd attempt to show it that violence is wrong.

Is that clear enough? ;)

In theory of course all killing is wrong. I go along with that premise.

But you see I have a basic problem with it. The Scales of Justice just don't balance up.

Perpetrator justice weighed against justice for the perpetrator's innocent victim(s).

So who are the losers within your terms of reference.....plainly the innocents.

The guilty often eventually go free and live out their lives.. The victims go to a coffin.Their relatives mourn for the rest of their lives.

A rather upside-down sense of justice to me.......but then I am older than you two, so I must have an addled sense of right and wrong. :)

For me, it seems we have an overpopulation and resource problem.

I'm against the idea of giving people who commit acts like rape and murder free board and lodging when they could be disposed of at no loss to anyone.

For me, it seems we have an overpopulation and resource problem.

I'm against the idea of giving people who commit acts like rape and murder free board and lodging when they could be disposed of at no loss to anyone.

Malthus is alive and well...and livin in Hillsborough