Which justice do you prefer?

[OldBlueLady]

Harry, I know what you're saying, there have been questions about several who were executed, Hanratty, Ruth Ellis, Derek Bentley all spring to mind. Those I'm referring to are the likes of Ian Brady, Dennis Nielson, Peter Sutcliffe, Rose West (Fred would have been a contender too as would, Myra Hindley and Harold Shipman).

Why should we have to fund their lifestyle in prison? They are nothing but a drain on this country and have as far as I'm concerned forfeited the right to lead any sort of life.

 

[Jedi Shrimper]

Quote:
Finding out what drives these people, what makes them do what they do would allow us to PREVENT innocent people from being murdered in the first place.

Do you think that will ever happen though?


Quote:
if you kill a murderer that's it, they do not suffer for what they have done.

But they wont ever harm anyopne else, and we wont have to pay to keep them alive.

1 - Are you saying it's not worth trying to save those innocent people?

2 - Neither will they harm anyone else if they really are in prison for life.
Is your primary concern balancing the books or punishing someone?
If it comes down to money, then prisoners could be used to build
roads etc ala the old chain gangs in america, or to build new prisons etc

 

[osymandus]

Harry, I know what you're saying, there have been questions about several who were executed, Hanratty, Ruth Ellis, Derek Bentley all spring to mind. Those I'm referring to are the likes of Ian Brady, Dennis Nielson, Peter Sutcliffe, Rose West (Fred would have been a contender too as would, Myra Hindley and Harold Shipman).

Why should we have to fund their lifestyle in prison? They are nothing but a drain on this country and have as far as I'm concerned forfeited the right to lead any sort of life.

Depends if you believe that a person can change or if we are irrevacably stuck and defined by our experinces wants and or desires ?

Can we become something else !

 

[steveo]

1 - Are you saying it's not worth trying to save those innocent people?

2 - Neither will they harm anyone else if they really are in prison for life.
Is your primary concern balancing the books or punishing someone?
If it comes down to money, then prisoners could be used to build
roads etc ala the old chain gangs in america, or to build new prisons etc

phew, so many questions:

No. The problem is, there is not one single reason why people kill. Surely most common reasons have been discovered and if you found someone who had that particular personality trait, you wouldnt be able to arrest them to stop them killing as they hadnt done anything wrong yet.

Punish someone yes. Don't let them be a drain on society if we dont need to, but if we dont give them the death penalty, yeah make them work and make them work hard, but then the old human rights mob will be up in arms.

 

[OldBlueLady]

Depends if you believe that a person can change or if we are irrevacably stuck and defined by our experinces wants and or desires ?

Can we become something else !

Myra Hindley certainly tried her best to convince everyone she had changed. It's funny how these kind of people so often "find religion" - like it's a get out clause or something. It's my opinion that these individuals have committed such heinous crimes on several occasions that they are entitled to nothing, ergo they forfeit life, the ultimate payment for the crimes they have committed.

 

[Firestorm]

The death penalty in the UK was actually abolished in 1965 just prior to the trial of Brady & Hindley IIRC. If it had not have been then I am fairly sure the death penalty would have been handed down to them.

My Mistake, I thought the 5 year "experiment" finshed in 1965, not started, and that there were a number of exceptions during the experiment.
It was finally abolished in 1969

However the death penalty for a single rape and murder was abolished in 1957 as part of the homicde act

http://www.stephen-stratford.co.uk/capital_hist.htm

 

[osymandus]

Myra Hindley certainly tried her best to convince everyone she had changed. It's funny how these kind of people so often "find religion" - like it's a get out clause or something. It's my opinion that these individuals have committed such heinous crimes on several occasions that they are entitled to nothing, ergo they forfeit life, the ultimate payment for the crimes they have committed.

Depends on the individual and their own self awareness then . If you commited teh murders in a sort of haze and blotted out the experinces (easierly done from a mental point of view for any experince) then gain realization and awareness later one could that not be said to be the worst punishment !! Also comes down to how you value human live as well i guess.

 

[OldBlueLady]

Depends on the individual and their own self awareness then . If you commited teh murders in a sort of haze and blotted out the experinces (easierly done from a mental point of view for any experince) then gain realization and awareness later one could that not be said to be the worst punishment !! Also comes down to how you value human live as well i guess.

Now we're heading back to the theory that we lived in a safer place when people were shut up in mental hospitals for all sorts of reasons, from epilepsy to paranoid schizophrenia or psychosis. I do believe that the perpetrator's "mental state" is sometimes used wrongly to escape stronger punishment as it goes.

 

[osymandus]

Now we're heading back to the theory that we lived in a safer place when people were shut up in mental hospitals for all sorts of reasons, from epilepsy to paranoid schizophrenia or psychosis. I do believe that the perpetrator's "mental state" is sometimes used wrongly to escape stronger punishment as it goes.

Not really. While its good teh symptons were recognised , your describing the poor treatments that were handed out . The persons mental state would be the driving force as to why they performed the action . How that came about should decide the punishment ?

 

[OldBlueLady]

Not really. While its good teh symptons were recognised , your describing the poor treatments that were handed out . The persons mental state would be the driving force as to why they performed the action . How that came about should decide the punishment ?

Definitely used as a get out clause (again) by some though. This integration and living in the community thing has to be held accountable for some of those who have gone on to commit other crimes when they've already been identified as having issues which are dangerous to others.

 

[osymandus]

Definitely used as a get out clause (again) by some though. This integration and living in the community thing has to be held accountable for some of those who have gone on to commit other crimes when they've already been identified as having issues which are dangerous to others.

Yes , but also in the same way faulty cars were recognised when they killed people , methods were found to amend and fix the issue. Ok that simplistic , but im afraid i dont believe you can save everyone , you can only attempt and try .

 

[SARF]

Why dont we send all our crimbos to the states, they can then either be killed in Texas or forced to serve their time in one of those really grim jails where taking a shower is more dangerous then wearing rocky shorts in baghdad... Also, re the death penalty let the victim, or in the case of murder the next of kin decide wether to hang em.. that way those who prefer, can let the bloke who broke into their mums house and killed her with a knife to be sent to jail... for example

 

[blue scorpion]

The death penalty arguement now rages elsewhere.

Do you think we should have our legal rulings challenged by Strasbourg or should we,like Texas,tell legal bodies such as ICJ to mind their own business.

 

[OldBlueLady]

The death penalty arguement now rages elsewhere.

Do you think we should have our legal rulings challenged by Strasbourg or should we,like Texas,tell legal bodies such as ICJ to mind their own business.

The trouble with that is that it's Texas, it's not an independent country. I think any country with a properly elected parliament or similar, should have the right to tell the ICJ to butt out.

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

And if they had been sentenced to death, they wouldnt have killed again.

Why is killing them your only option? I'm still all in favour of the state shoving them all on a Hebridean island and leaving them there to rot.

You still haven't answered how two wrongs make a right, incidentally.

 

[steveo]

I'm still all in favour of the state shoving them all on a Hebridean island and leaving them there to rot.

I would go for this option as well but it is not likely to happen. If you kill them they cost nothing and have absolutely no chance of re offending.

Also if sentencing someone to death is a punishment decided by the elected government, it can hardly be called a wrong, so there is no need to argue a case for two wrongs making a right.

 

[Napster]

I would like all criminals to be forced to watch West Ham on an eternal loop while being ravished by a Colchester gimp.

 

[Desert Shrimper]

If you kill them they cost nothing and have absolutely no chance of re offending.

What about the cost of killing them? They should damn well pay to be stoned to death by an angry mob of Daily Mail readers but that's the kind of economics this weak, lefty government will never have the balls to implement.

 

[please delete my account]

I would like all criminals to be forced to watch West Ham on an eternal loop while being ravished by a Colchester gimp.

An excellent idea. I like your style.

It would, however, lead to a massive increase in the numbers of East London criminals..

 

[Birri]

An excellent idea. I like your style.

It would, however, lead to a massive increase in the numbers of East London criminals..

The old East london criminals would have liked that idea the new ones are more interested in Cricket