OK here goes

[Digit]

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]

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]

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

Roy.

 

[Rich]

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

 

[Digit]

Sure Rich. Pity his wife hasn't!

Roy.

 

[Slim]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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

Roy.

 

[Slim]

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?