# OK here goes



## devonwoody (1 Feb 2008)

I heard on the news this morning that judges are to be told not to send anymore burglars to jail. Honest that what was said.


My wife says what are they going to do then. She says I suppose they will give them community sentences such as helping old ladies with their housework. Good idea I said, the robbing b's should find some more good leads that way.

OK, heres the moan.

If they hung all the murderers they had in prison, they would then have plenty of space to lock up burglars.

What do you think?


----------



## woodbloke (1 Feb 2008)

DW - I can see that this thread could get very long and quite contentious, but here's my 2 euros worth. While I can sympathize with that viewpoint but it's been shown time and again in various studies that capital punishment has little if no effect on the rate at which murders are committed, in other words it's not a deterrent. Further, it's almost impossible to *guarantee 100%* that you're going to execute the right individual...and if you have the wrong person, what do you do then afterwards  when innocence has been proved? DNA testing has made proof of guilt much more likely, but to my mind, there will always be some element of doubt.
You only need to look at the miscarriages of justice that have occurred over the last couple of decades to realize that hanging is not an option - Rob


----------



## devonwoody (1 Feb 2008)

Rob, you dont need to worry about the miscarriage of justice, the bloke isnt around to complain. No smilie.


----------



## woodbloke (1 Feb 2008)

Kisko - Rob


----------



## devonwoody (1 Feb 2008)

If you send a murderer to prison for 20 years and he dies in prison before he is released and then it turns out there was a miscarriage of justice. What is the difference from hanging in the first place.
The poor chap did nineteen years knowing he was innocent so he would have been better off being hung in the first place.

We need the room to lock up the burglars.


----------



## Paul Chapman (1 Feb 2008)

Derek Bentley, Timothy Evans........the list goes on and on. The number of innocent people who have been hanged is appaling. For this reason alone they should never bring back capital punishment.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## devonwoody (1 Feb 2008)

In this day and age I think there are medicinal drugs that would allow a question to be put to a defendant that would involve the truth of any disputed verdict to be adequately tested. 

The drug need not involve pain or torture.

The legal profession would not like it tho, it would stop all their income they make from those legal appeals.


----------



## tim (1 Feb 2008)

devonwoody":1t2feerh said:


> Rob, you dont need to worry about the miscarriage of justice, the bloke isnt around to complain. No smilie.



Replace the word 'bloke' with 'Devonwoody' or your wife or daughter's name and its not difficult to see why your idea is dumb.

In many ways I believe that capital punishment in certain circumstances would be acceptable and better than life without parole. But ,and its a deal breaking but, the acceptability is removed if just one person is wrongly put to death. Consequently, there should be no capital punishment.


----------



## devonwoody (1 Feb 2008)

And what about the administering of a drug to obtain the truth from the defendant to solve that problem?


----------



## Karl (1 Feb 2008)

DW - what drug??? I think you've been reading too much Harry Potter....

Cheers

Karl


----------



## devonwoody (1 Feb 2008)

When my wife wants the truth, she keeps filling up my glass of whisky.

However I have some family members in the medical profession and they tell me if they were to repeat what they hear from patients under anesthetic the prisons population would be much larger than now.


----------



## Mike.C (1 Feb 2008)

DW it seems that under these drugs you have got more chance of coming up with a miscarriage of justice. :roll: 

http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=223

If hanging was still about we could have possibly hung 10 innocent people in just 2 cases (Birmingham 6 and Guildford 4). IMHO, one is too many.

Cheers

Mike


----------



## devonwoody (1 Feb 2008)

Mike.C":2k2c765p said:


> DW it seems that under these drugs you have got more chance of coming up with a miscarriage of justice. :roll:
> 
> http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=223
> 
> ...



So you have someone who has killed ten children in a classroom and there are 20 witnesses left plus the culprit is apprended with the sword in his hand and photographed trying to behead his next victim and he is covered with his victims blood and you still have doubts, well you could make sure by giving him a bottle of whisky and making him drink it over the period of two hours and then ask him if he enjoyed his killing spree, and if he said yes, you would still have some doubt about hanging him.

Anyone who thinks differently post his reason.


----------



## Jake (1 Feb 2008)

Because we are better than him.


----------



## seanybaby (1 Feb 2008)

devonwoody":cxnnsa1u said:


> If they hung all the murderers they had in prison, they would then have plenty of space to lock up burglars.
> 
> What do you think?



However there are not that many murderers in prison! Something like 70% of people in prison are in there because of drugs!

There are sick people who self medicate with cannabis is prison!

90% of burglars, burgle to fund there drug habits.

Legalise all drugs = less people criminalised and less burglaries.

Then we can start locking pedos and rapists up instead of giving them community service.

Food for thought :-k


----------



## devonwoody (1 Feb 2008)

OK, so we dont lock up burglars that are burgling to feed their drug habit but supply them with all the drugs they need so they can kill themselves.

Sounds a good proposition to me. 

But still hang that fellow we caught in the classroom killing ten children even if it is your son or mine.


----------



## Slim (1 Feb 2008)

Hmmm... I never understood how death was a punishment. It seems like an easy way out of life in prison to me. Yet it is a punishment to the accused' family and friends.

Not entirley sure that legalising drugs would help. The two biggest 'legal' drugs, nicotine and alcohol, cause more problems than all of the illegal drugs combined. Such as cost to the NHS.


----------



## RogerS (1 Feb 2008)

seanybaby":14dyxc6f said:


> ......
> 
> Legalise all drugs = less people criminalised and less burglaries.
> .......



Hear, hear...long overdue. Free issue drugs.


----------



## RogerS (1 Feb 2008)

Slim":974av8u2 said:


> Not entirley sure that legalising drugs would help. The two biggest 'legal' drugs, nicotine and alcohol, cause more problems than all of the illegal drugs combined. Such as cost to the NHS.



Simon..where is your evidence to back up that statement? How many people do you know who were burgled/mugged/robbed to feed someones nicotine habit?

Here's another contentious thought. The police have arrested someone who has admitted to planting a bomb in a public place. There is sufficient corroborating evidence to establish beyond doubt that this person is telling the truth and that the bomb is real. The police do not know where the bomb is located nor when it it is due to go off. So....should they be allowed to torture the person to reveal the information and so save countless lives and avoid personal injury to many others?


----------



## Slim (1 Feb 2008)

Sorry Roger, I didn't really mean in terms of crime. Although, you only have to look at any city centre on a Saturday night to see how alcohol cause crime. I meant the social and economic problems that come with these two.


----------



## devonwoody (1 Feb 2008)

I've got the feeling I'm winning this discussion only around 10 members have put up negative answers to mine, and over 240 persons have looked at thread and that leaves 230 ish that dont disagree.


----------



## Gary (1 Feb 2008)

karl":3q1jepf9 said:


> DW - what drug??? I think you've been reading too much Harry Potter....



Karl do you believe all that Harry Potter stuff?

Its all a bit too far fetched for me. I mean I can understand the wizards and the flying car but come on a ginger kid with two mates. 

Now thats taking it a bit far. :lol:


----------



## Digit (1 Feb 2008)

I probably remember as many of the quoted miscarriages as anybody else on this forum.
At one time death was the only penalty in English law for murder, now we have the opposite! IMO both were/are wrong!
Some years ago a man was ordered by his local council to knock down the large structure he had erected on his allotment, he refused and police and workmen were brought in to see to its removal.
In front of the TV cameras the man shot dead the council rep.
Anyone else remember it?
The chap pleaded not guilty!
Millions of witnesses, should he not have paid for his crime with his own life?

Roy.


----------



## StevieB (1 Feb 2008)

Hmm, can see this thread getting locked before long!

Alcohol is the single biggest drug problem in the UK, and if it were 'discovered' today would immediately be a class A drug. It is also the single biggest expense in terms of treatment cost to the NHS, not only from the Friday night special turning up in A&E but from liver failure, kidney failure, obesity and long term diabetic complications as well.

As to the issue of free and legalised drugs, I think it is simplistic to suggest it would lead to drops in crime rates and antisocial behaviour. Where do you draw the line? Free heroin and cocaine? Free cannabis? Free paracetamol? Free anabolic steroids? Why make recreational drugs free and not Interferon beta for cancer patients or tamoxifen and cisplatin for breast cancer patients?

We are currently experiencing a debate over cheap alcohol leading to increased use and abuse. If drugs were free and legal dont you think the useage would increase? Quite apart from the legal implications of making something freely available that WILL kill or seriously damage health, would you really want a population on drugs legally?! Its not so easy to tell if someone is high on drugs as compared to having drunk several pints. Would you let your spouse/child in a taxi with a driver high on legal drugs? Would you be able to tell if he was high? Increase supply and you increase uptake, quite possibly with unforseen consequences. Increased death rates and medical complications among them. 

I am afraid I just cannot agree with the make drugs free to reduce crime argument, sorry.

Steve.


----------



## StevieB (1 Feb 2008)

> I've got the feeling I'm winning this discussion only around 10 members have put up negative answers to mine, and over 240 persons have looked at thread and that leaves 230 ish that dont disagree.



No it doesn't, it leave 230 that have not commented. Whether they agree or disagree cannot be assumed from the fact they havent posted.

Steve


----------



## Karl (1 Feb 2008)

Gary":1rea60dq said:


> karl":1rea60dq said:
> 
> 
> > DW - what drug??? I think you've been reading too much Harry Potter....
> ...



Gary - I was tempted to hit the "report post" button - abuse of Gingers :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 

Cheers

Karl


----------



## devonwoody (1 Feb 2008)

Digit":2iiur4uj said:


> I probably remember as many of the quoted miscarriages as anybody else on this forum.
> At one time death was the only penalty in English law for murder, now we have the opposite! IMO both were/are wrong!
> Some years ago a man was ordered by his local council to knock down the large structure he had erected on his allotment, he refused and police and workmen were brought in to see to its removal.
> In front of the TV cameras the man shot dead the council rep.
> ...



I wonder how many appeals he has launched with the connivance of the legal profession whose only thought on that case could be for them to make some money.


----------



## RogerS (1 Feb 2008)

You raise some interesting points.



StevieB":4e6sncjw said:


> .......
> It is also the single biggest expense in terms of treatment cost to the NHS, not only from the Friday night special turning up in A&E but from liver failure, kidney failure, obesity and long term diabetic complications as well.



Where is your evidence to support this claim? How much money is 'lost' to the country as a result of crimes committed to find the money to feed a drugs habit?


StevieB":4e6sncjw said:


> As to the issue of free and legalised drugs, I think it is simplistic to suggest it would lead to drops in crime rates and antisocial behaviour. Where do you draw the line? Free heroin and cocaine? Free cannabis? Free paracetamol? Free anabolic steroids? Why make recreational drugs free and not Interferon beta for cancer patients or tamoxifen and cisplatin for breast cancer patients?



Probably yes to all the above although I'm not sure how many grannies get bashed over the head to fund a paracetamol habit. Don't patients get Tamoxifen on the NHS?


StevieB":4e6sncjw said:


> We are currently experiencing a debate over cheap alcohol leading to increased use and abuse. If drugs were free and legal dont you think the useage would increase? Quite apart from the legal implications of making something freely available that WILL kill or seriously damage health, would you really want a population on drugs legally?! Its not so easy to tell if someone is high on drugs as compared to having drunk several pints. Would you let your spouse/child in a taxi with a driver high on legal drugs? Would you be able to tell if he was high? Increase supply and you increase uptake, quite possibly with unforseen consequences. Increased death rates and medical complications among them.


 Whether you have free-issue drugs or not - a driver can still be high on drugs. Your statement that 'increase supply and you increase uptake' is not necessarily true.


----------



## Slim (1 Feb 2008)

devonwoody":2h256vr2 said:


> I wonder how many appeals he has launched with the connivance of the legal profession whose only thought on that case could be for them to make some money.



That's a little unfair isn't it. You seem to have a rather low opinion of the legal profession.


----------



## devonwoody (1 Feb 2008)

I surrender on that one., but I did say connivance, those that are not conivening please forgive me.


----------



## StevieB (1 Feb 2008)

Hi Roger,

Evidence comes from a number of sources, including the media:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3537257.stm

government reports

http://www.ias.org.uk/resources/factsheets/nhs.pdf

Verbal report from a police chief inspector (regarding alcohol as a class A drug) I spoke to at a meeting

and the fact that I currently work in a stroke / cardiovascular research unit and see the cases of alcohol related death and disability on a daily basis.

As to how much money is lost through drug related crime, I wouldn't know, but my point was not that we would save more from reduced crime compared to increased NHS costs, it was that I do not think it is as simple as a linear statement such as free drugs = reduced crime = a good idea to provide free drugs.

Regarding the cost of drugs, the more expensive ones such as interferon beta and cisplatin are health trust dependent due to their cost. This was the fuss about postcode lottery for treatment when a cancer patient was denied a drug due to the road she lived in - if she had lived down the road she would be in a different healthcare trust and which would have paid for the treatment. If as you suggest we are to make all these free, who would ultimately pick up the cost? Certainly not the pharmaceutical companies, it would be us through taxes. your point about grannies being mugged for a paracetamol habit is spurious, I was asking whether all drugs should be free and where the line was drawn, not suggesting that free paracetamol would lead to a crime epidemic.

Regarding the increase supply and you increase demand argument, I still feel this is true. If people want something and you discount it, demand goes up. If it didn't shops would not offer 3 for 2 on items or have sales. Make something free and it becomes a commodity that lots of people will want/take just because it is free. It removes one of the barriers to accessing the item. This is as true for drugs as anything else.

Society is bound by rules and convention. If it was not the result would be anarchy. Only by obeying the rules is anarchy avoided. Take away the rules so that suddenly it is OK to do something and people will do that thing. Whether its being openly gay, walking on the grass, taking drugs or anything else. Once the stigma of the action is removed then it becomes acceptable and more common. As it becomes more common it becomes more mainstream and soon becomes the norm. As a crude example take the use of the word 'rubbish'. a few years ago it was considered swearing. Then Gerald Ratner used it to describe his products and it hit the mainstream media in an uncensored form. Now its useage is not considered swearing and it's useage has increased. By removing the taboo / rule / convention of not using the word its useage has gone up. Sure, not everyone uses it and some never will. It is the same with drugs. Increase acceptability by taking away the stigma (my parents would be mortified if I told them I was a drug addict currently, it still carries huge stigma), increase availability by making them free and useage will increase.

I guess my whole feeling on the issue is that its not as simple as free drugs = reduced crime = a good thing. 

Steve.


----------



## devonwoody (1 Feb 2008)

Nothing derogatory to anyone above but those that want to discuss drugs start their own thread.


----------



## Slim (1 Feb 2008)

Very well said Steve. Exactly what I was thinking, I just couldn't articulate it so well.


----------



## RogerS (1 Feb 2008)

Slim":36dc5gtf said:


> Very well said Steve. Exactly what I was thinking, I just couldn't articulate it so well.



Very cogently put, Steve, and I can't argue against anything you say.

So back on topic........


----------



## StevieB (1 Feb 2008)

OK, back on topic. DW, you seem to be advocating bringing back the death penalty, correct?

To me the death penalty serves only one main purpose, that of ensuring the crime committed cannot be perpetrated again. Use of the death penalty does nothing to bring back the murdered victim and does not really act as a deterrant. The flip side of not having the death penalty, to me at least, is that life should mean life. The inmate should also be made to work, whether that is sewing mail bags, breaking rocks or digging ditches is immaterial. To sentance someone to life but with allowance for release in 15 years, 10 for good behaviour, where they have a cell with luxuries in is not a punishment. Jail is a punishment, not a holiday camp.

As already stated, 100% proof is difficult to get. Its a question of where you draw the line. Lie detector tests are not infallible, scopolomine (WWII truth drug) and other medication is not infallible (and are currently illegal) and nor are juries. Especially where lawyers get clever with words. Scientific advances allow new techniques and new evidence to be questioned and even DNA evidence is a balance of probability and liklihood.

Much as headline grabbing trials such as Myra Hindley and Ian Huntley lead to calls for the death penalty, far more are based on questionable evidence and balance of probability that a clear cut open and shut case. for that reason alone the death penalty is currently considered unacceptable.

Toughen up sentencing, make crime punishable by life means a life hard labour, sure. Send them to military style boot camp and instill some purpose, no problem with that. But to take a life while there is even the faintest possibility of innocence is to condone legalised murder and leaves the judiciary no better, and some would say worse, than the wrongly convicted victim of capital punishment.

Steve.


----------



## Mike.C (1 Feb 2008)

DW wrote,


> Mike.C wrote:
> DW it seems that under these drugs you have got more chance of coming up with a miscarriage of justice.
> 
> http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=223
> ...



He may very well deserved to be hanged but it still does not convince me that we should reintroduce the death penalty.
There is no evidence that hanging is a deterrent, in fact in the US it seems that the states without the death penalty have consistently lower murder rates then those that do have it.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article ... 2&did=168#

Also once you hang someone thats their punishment over, whereas if you let them rot in prison they will suffer for the rest of their lives, and if they are then found to be innocent you can correct the problem which you cannot do if they are dead.

Since the introduction of DNA evidence, look at how many people in the USA who have been released from death row when it has been found out that they were not guilty of their crimes.

Cheers

Mike


----------



## ByronBlack (1 Feb 2008)

All violent criminals should be sent to a very large prison in the middle of siberia, we can outsource to the russians to run the place, it would be cheaper, tiny risk of escape and keeps the chance to bring them back if it comes to light they are innocent - like the scottish fellow who recently got off death-row in the states. Hanging leaves very little room for error and is an easy way out, people need to be punished for their crimes.

But in all this discussion no one has really started at the root of the issue - the motivation. What drives people to do these things. Until we nail that issue, you can have all the prisons, hangings and preventative measures in place, you'll still have violent crimes committed regardless.


----------



## devonwoody (1 Feb 2008)

So how many murderers have we got in or served prison sentance for murder in prison.

30.000?


----------



## ByronBlack (1 Feb 2008)

devonwoody":2u6se7bb said:


> So how many murderers have we got in prison.
> 
> 30.000?



nowhere near, I think there is only 80-100k prison places in the UK so I doubt a third are murderers.


----------



## Karl (1 Feb 2008)

ByronBlack":accob1cc said:


> devonwoody":accob1cc said:
> 
> 
> > So how many murderers have we got in prison.
> ...



Or did he mean 30 (to three decimal places)......

Cheers

Karl


----------



## devonwoody (1 Feb 2008)

karl":3lobzliw said:


> ByronBlack":3lobzliw said:
> 
> 
> > devonwoody":3lobzliw said:
> ...



Yes per hundred.


----------



## seanybaby (1 Feb 2008)

> The data is held at end of month only, therefore the figures for the 30th November 2005 are as follows: there were 3,816 murderers under sentence in prisons in England and Wales. Of these, 3,673 were male and 143 were female. All murderers serve a mandatory life sentence.



http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-...ment/300-persons-detained-in-prison?view=Html

Back on topic  I don't think it should be brought back, but the sentences are definitely not long enough in most cases. However having longer sentences probably won't cut down the murder rate?


----------



## devonwoody (1 Feb 2008)

Thank you Sean, but you haven't given us the figures for all those that have now been released, and I assume some have even been released to create space,


----------



## Slim (1 Feb 2008)

seanybaby":7xyvolg9 said:


> > The data is held at end of month only, therefore the figures for the 30th November 2005 are as follows: there were 3,816 murderers under sentence in prisons in England and Wales. Of these, 3,673 were male and 143 were female. All murderers serve a mandatory life sentence.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-...ment/300-persons-detained-in-prison?view=Html



With a total population of 81,264. Which makes the percentage of murderers 4.5%.


----------



## devonwoody (1 Feb 2008)

3600 inmates costing £50.000 each per year = around £180million multiplied by 20 years,

Hang em.


----------



## Slim (1 Feb 2008)

DW, it doesn't work if you just pick figures out of thin air.  



> In 2003-2004 it cost an average of £37,305 to keep a person in prison


----------



## devonwoody (1 Feb 2008)

Slim":3kfwlhlu said:


> DW, it doesn't work if you just pick figures out of thin air.
> 
> 
> 
> > In 2003-2004 it cost an average of £37,305 to keep a person in prison



So there wont be much wrong with £50.000 in 2008.  

Actually the £50k figure I think was quote last week by some official.


----------



## Slim (1 Feb 2008)

devonwoody":16f4ayjw said:


> So there wont be much wrong with £50.000 in 2008.



True  Sorry


----------



## devonwoody (1 Feb 2008)

Slim":2ihbtirv said:


> seanybaby":2ihbtirv said:
> 
> 
> > > The data is held at end of month only, therefore the figures for the 30th November 2005 are as follows: there were 3,816 murderers under sentence in prisons in England and Wales. Of these, 3,673 were male and 143 were female. All murderers serve a mandatory life sentence.
> ...



BTW in 1948 I should think the figure was less than 0.1% in prison, so hanging must work


----------



## seanybaby (1 Feb 2008)

Why hang them, when we can get them to dance :lol: 

http://www.radiotimes.com/ListingsS...95&jspLocation=/jsp/prog_details_fullpage.jsp


----------



## Digit (1 Feb 2008)

My mother and a cousin both died violent deaths at the hands of others.
Wanna know my opinion?

Roy.


----------



## Karl (1 Feb 2008)

Digit":1q1ws97g said:


> My mother and a cousin both died violent deaths at the hands of others.
> Wanna know my opinion?
> 
> Roy.



Roy

I found your post very sobering, in light of the jovial posts made earlier ( of which I made a couple  ).

Anyway, I would be intrigued to hear your opinion, although that may be a rhetorical question.

Cheers

Karl


----------



## Digit (1 Feb 2008)

Very simple! Where proof is absolute, an eye for an eye!
Those of you with children. If you can say with absolute honesty that you would still reject the death penalty for the murder of your child, you have my deepest respect!

Roy.


----------



## Karl (1 Feb 2008)

Roy

That's an interesting question you pose.

I have, after a prolonged absence, returned to the Church, something which isn't very 8) in many peoples eyes. In fact I don't recall seeing another post referring to religion in the time I have been a member - hope it isn't on the "banned" list.....

I don't claim to know it all, or have any of the answers, but I know that I believe in there being only one judge. On that basis alone I would be opposed to the death penalty. 

But if it were my child, I couldn't say with 100% certainty that I wouldn't be baying for their blood.

Food for thought.

Cheers

Karl


----------



## caretaker (1 Feb 2008)

I think they should get hard labor, how about digging my allotment....


----------



## Digit (1 Feb 2008)

Depends on your Church Karl. All mid east/western churches have a Judaic base and none proscribe the death penalty.
I was raised in Jewish family and only have qualms about blanket sentencing, as when a guilty verdict had but one result.
I was deeply moved many years ago when the DP was suspended, (it was later abolished for murder) by the sentence that was passed on a man who had killed his 12yr old son.
The boy had spinal cancer and was terminal and in great pain. The father smothered him then surrendered himself to the police. Only one verdict was possible and the jury found him guilty.
The judge gave him 2yrs probation, if I recall correctly, and stated, _I feel that you will receive full forgiveness in this world and the next._
The poor devil killed himself a few weeks later.

Roy.


----------



## Mike.C (1 Feb 2008)

Karl wrote


> I have, after a prolonged absence, returned to the Church, something which isn't very in many peoples eyes 8)



Nothing wrong with the Church Karl and certainly nothing to feel embarrassed about.

Cheers

Mike


----------



## Karl (1 Feb 2008)

Cheers Mike

Karl


----------



## Rich (1 Feb 2008)

This is obviously a very contentios issue and I don't pretend to have the answer but like others here on the forum have my opinions and to be truthful those opinions were formed from an early age by listening to my parents generation discussing the same topic.
however as you all know ones opinions change as you get older and as a yuong man I would have backed capital punishment to the hilt, fast forward 30 years and I have become "selective" in as much as I would like to see a graduated sentencing system.
Where a person like my self were to find his wife/kids being attacked and losing my head in a temper/blind panic and killing someone out of pure rage, I don't think this warrants C.P.
where, for instance a man is attacked and killed by a mob of youths because he was defending his property, 25-30 years inside a prison, NOT a holiday camp and every day to be served with no let off for good behaviour.
Where a person such as a robber goes out with a loaded gun with the intention of stealing someone else's possessions even if it means killing them, "premeditated" and it's beyond "any reasonable doubt" that he committed the crime, then YES, C.P. what's the point of wasting taxpayers
money keeping him alive, he's an arsxxxxe. 
I appreciate this all sounds black and white but that's it for me.
regards, Rich.

PS. Hving said all this I don't think I'd have what it take's to be a judge.


----------



## mailee (1 Feb 2008)

If I had my way I would hang drug dealers and murderers not to mention terrorists. I am sure the world would be a far better place without them. I would also administer harsh sentences for theives and show them crime does not pay. It is only the do gooders who have messed everything up, if it carries on it will end in anarchy.


----------



## Digit (1 Feb 2008)

Agree with every word Rich! The execution of Ruth Ellis just about finished CP here, but as usual with governments it's all or nothing. Degrees of murder does make more sense.
And before someone asks me if I would drop the trap on someone,-I don't know!

Roy.


----------



## gardenshed (1 Feb 2008)

It would help if criminals etc had to serve their full sentence, if a judge gives out 10yrs for a crime, you should have to do 10yrs, all this reduced sentencing for good behavior etc is a complete nonsense. If you behave etc whilst inside then you can come out in 10yrs, if you don't your time should be extended.

As to the hanging debate, I used to be for it for many years, but as had been mentioned previously too many innocent people have been convicted.

Rob mentioned Stephen Kisko even the police Knew he was innocent, and they let him be sent to rot in jail. they had the proof but kept it from the defence.
That's why I'm against hanging,


----------



## Digit (1 Feb 2008)

Can't argue with that GS. But would you hold the same viewpoint about Hamilton and the Dunblane killings?

Roy.


----------



## Rich (1 Feb 2008)

As evil as he was , at least Fred West done the decent thing.
Rich.


----------



## Digit (1 Feb 2008)

Sure Rich. Pity his wife hasn't!

Roy.


----------



## Slim (1 Feb 2008)

> But would you hold the same viewpoint about Hamilton and the Dunblane killings?



I don't see how you can distinguish between different cases. Every convicted murderer has been before a judge and jury and been found guilty. Their guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, even the ones who have been wrongly convicted. It only takes one wrongful conviction to give an undeniable reason why the death penalty cannot be enforced.

What about the mothers who were wrongly imprisoned for murdering their babies. How would we feel if they were put to death only to find out years later that the evidence given at their trial was unsafe?

I do agree that a prison sentence must be a punishment and at the moment it isn't. Prisoners almost seem to have more human rights than we do. A 10 year term must be a term year term. Being released early almost gives the impression that it is ok to commit a crime as long as you behave well afterwards.


----------



## Digit (1 Feb 2008)

The difference to me Slim is whether you can prove guilt absolutely, if yes, then if the crime warrents it, execute!
If there is the remotest doubt, then no!
There was no doubt about Hamilton nor some more recent slayings.
Why should anybody who kills in cold blood not expect to forfeit their own life?

Roy.


----------



## Slim (1 Feb 2008)

But if there is any doubt, the jury has to return a verdict of not guilty. So every conviction, right or wrong, has been proved absolutely.


----------



## Slim (1 Feb 2008)

Digit":va0pwap9 said:


> Why should anybody who kills in cold blood not expect to forfeit their own life?



I may feel completely different if it ever happened to someone close to me, but at the moment, I feel that there is no chance to feel guilt or remorse if they are put to death. A life time in a 'real' prison (not the holiday camps we have in this country) would be much better in my opinion.


----------



## Rich (1 Feb 2008)

With all due respect Slim, the point I am making is "the reason for carrying out the murder"was it an act of uncontrollable rage? was it just wanton destruction? or maybe you just don't give a sxit for any one else's life, either way your are inherently a good person or a bad person, some can be turned round, but others just don't give a toss they are beyond the pale and don't deserve a second chance, every one goes astray in life and needs help now and again but others just DO NOT CARE, unfortunately the do gooders have brought us to the situation that we now find ourselves in, as I said on a previous posting elsewhere "the victorians were no fools" one of their best known sayings was, "spare the rod and spoil the child" sadly, how true this has become.
Yours despairingly, Rich.


----------



## Slim (1 Feb 2008)

I think this website says it all really.

http://www.innocent.org.uk/

I have just had a read through some of the cases on this site, and there a plenty of people who would fall into your "inherently bad people" category, if they were not innocent.

I can understnad your thoughts, and I don't blame anyone for feeling that way, but our judicial system is not infallible.


----------



## Digit (1 Feb 2008)

Again Rich, I agree with every word.
And the point there Simon is if you think your view would alter if the crime came close, must be that it does come close to people, and you should view it on the basis that if you would say yes if it came close is to see it from the other's viewpoint and execute where suited.
Your view should not be based on the fact that you have been hurt justifies execution, if execution suits when you are hurt then it fits when others are hurt.

Roy.


----------



## Slim (1 Feb 2008)

Yes, Roy. But my argument here is not whether it is right or wrong to want someone executed. I don't blame anyone for feeling that way. As I said, I might well feel that way if the crime did come close. I don't know.

My argument is that we cannot rely on the judicial system to get it right every time. As such, we cannot have capital punishment.


----------



## BradNaylor (2 Feb 2008)

devonwoody":3vi4i3z6 said:


> I've got the feeling I'm winning this discussion only around 10 members have put up negative answers to mine, and over 240 persons have looked at thread and that leaves 230 ish that dont disagree.



Or maybe 230 who think to themselves 'There goes another old Tory nutter who's had a few too many of those truth serum whiskies'

My twopennerth - I would happily kill most of these murderers myself; however, in a civilised society we must rise above the base instincts of revenge and bloodlust and impose punishments that actually work as a deterrent to others, as protection for society, and as rehabilitation for the offender.

For many murderers and violent rapists this will mean actual life imprisonment with no parole.

For many lesser offences like burglery prison is probably the worst possible punishment, as it will act as an 'academy of crime'.

For such offences I would reintroduce a form of the stocks in every town centre. Offenders would be forced to sit all day stripped to their underwear with a placard around their necks giving their name, address, and details of their offending. The public would be allowed to shout abuse and laugh in their faces. This ritual humiliation would, I'm sure, have a dramatic effect on the incidence of low level crime.


----------



## devonwoody (2 Feb 2008)

Thanks everyone for their opinion, I am pleased to learn that there are people like me that have the same thoughts.
To those that don't I myself feel no hurt.

Lets say a thread that had 977 views in under twenty four hours and nobody got nasty says this forum is still in fine form.


----------



## Digit (2 Feb 2008)

Simon and I have demonstrated that we cannot except each others viewpoint but also that we respect each other's right to their opinion. If others would do the same we might not be holding this debate I feel nor picking up the pieces of young lives destroyed!

Roy.


----------



## Smudger (2 Feb 2008)

Devonwoody - please don't use the 'if you haven't argued against me then you must agree with me' line.
I heartily disagree with you, but I log on to this forum to read about and discuss woodworking, not to take part in pointless discussions about punishments. I suspect most of the 230 felt something similar.


----------



## Slim (2 Feb 2008)

devonwoody":1gpt7jji said:


> Lets say a thread that had 977 views in under twenty four hours and nobody got nasty says this forum is still in fine form.



Nicely put DW.  



Digit":1gpt7jji said:


> Simon and I have demonstrated that we cannot except each others viewpoint but also that we respect each other's right to their opinion. If others would do the same we might not be holding this debate I feel nor picking up the pieces of young lives destroyed!



I suspect you are right Roy. So what's the next debate? Euthanasia? Human cloning? :wink:


----------



## Digit (2 Feb 2008)

Trouble with Euthanasia is it's a dead end! :twisted: 
No future in it at all.

Roy.


----------



## Slim (2 Feb 2008)

In light of the news of the so called human cloning going on, we have to ask ourselves the hypothetical question. 

If you pushed your naked clone off the top of a tall building, would it be: 

A) murder? 

B) suicide? or 

C) merely making an obscene clone fall?


----------



## RogerS (2 Feb 2008)

Smudger":224zwuel said:


> Devonwoody - please don't use the 'if you haven't argued against me then you must agree with me' line.
> I heartily disagree with you, but I log on to this forum to read about and discuss woodworking, not to take part in pointless discussions about punishments. I suspect most of the 230 felt something similar.



Which surely is why we have the Off Topic area? No one is forcing you to read these threads.


----------



## Smudger (2 Feb 2008)

Quite. And I wouldn't have replied if my diffidence hadn't been taken as support. I'm not interested in the thread but I'm damned if I'll be taken as agreeing because I don't post. That sort of statement is what takes and chucks away any civilised discussion.


----------



## devonwoody (2 Feb 2008)

Smudger":1cdr8mgy said:


> Quite. And I wouldn't have replied if my diffidence hadn't been taken as support. I'm not interested in the thread but I'm damned if I'll be taken as agreeing because I don't post. That sort of statement is what takes and chucks away any civilised discussion.



Sorry Smudger about that.

However you must have read 19 posts.


----------



## Losos (5 Feb 2008)

woodbloke":24iw9kzu said:


> _DW - I can see that this thread could get very long and quite contentious, but here's my 2 euros worth. While I can sympathize with that viewpoint but it's been shown time and again in various studies that capital punishment has little if no effect on the rate at which murders are committed, *in other words it's not a deterrent.* _



I'm sure you're right about the studies that have been done, but surely the result of these studies begs the question - *What will deter people *from going around killing other people, do we need an injection that changes the murderers brain function (Assuming they have a brain :lol: )

I am always perplexed that while we can put men on the moon, communicate all over the globe, but we can't seem to find an answer to this problem.

Sorry I will have to wait 'till tonight to read all this thread, just wanted to ask that, which I think is a relevant question.


----------



## devonwoody (5 Feb 2008)

Losos, sorry you are so late in coming into the thread.

If you hang a person you are 100% sure to know that he will never commit murder again, so that is a 100% deterrent.

If you have a person with a bomb strapped to his waist, authorities do not negotiate with the person if he is in a crowded situation so they shoot to kill instantly. So the death penalty is alright there . (the man could have changed his mind and not detonated his bomb so then they have killed a man who did not commit murder) Also if an armed man threatens in response to the police armed unit he is quite often killed in that instance.

I think the death penalty was abolished because the home secretary did not want to earn his wages. When an appeal was launched he did not want the responsibly (and did he also have to witness the execution?) of ordering the hanging.


----------



## Digit (5 Feb 2008)

The argument that the death penalty does not act as a deterrent begs the one question.
How do you know?
Try this.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4457402.stm


----------



## Jake (5 Feb 2008)

Fire and brimstone all you like, fortunately we are a member state of a civilised human rights treaty which renders all the fulmination pointless. Unless you wish to withdraw from a international human rights convention like some mucky banana republic. Oh and be forced to leave the EU while you are it.

There, that last bit should send this thread DailyMailtasttic.


----------



## Digit (5 Feb 2008)

What a wonderful idea. You've got my vote!

Roy.


----------

