Death penalty!

[charvell]

When does a child cease to be a child? Lets say its at 16. Lets also say that Bobby and Billy share the same birthday, Bobby gets murdered at 23:55 the day before his 16th, and Billy gets murdered at 00:05 on his 16th birthday (legally outwith the automatic hanging time frame). Why is it OK to hang Bobby's murderer but Billy's gets jail time?

I assume when you say 'cop' you mean a member of the police force? Can you tell me why killing one of them differs from killing you or me?

And before you all start having a go, the most pedantic system we have is our legal system.

We either have the death penalty, or we don't. There cannot be vocational or demographic rules.

I agree, if you murder then you should be aware you will face the death penalty.

[Sancho]

Agree totally Ian.

Personally, I'd rather die than have my freedom taken away, but we need to make sure that prison is harsh and sentences fit the crime, as you say.

Interesting, Andy. I read this at home and decided I would reply when I got to work, and my reply is:

Yes, bring it back, but make it the criminal's choice. i.e. Once you're convicted do you want a life sentence or a death sentence? The majority of serious criminals (including the dreaded Paedos) are hugely mentally ill, extremely troubled and generally ruined by drugs or alcohol. Most would welcome the opportunity to die and have it finished. Personally, given the choice between a year or death, I'd go for death.

[leighh]

The death penalty?! ...No. It's ridiculous.

[Apache]

The death penalty?! ...No. It's ridiculous.

Good argument, some very good points!

Sancho - interesting. If someone was allowed to choose their punishment, does that diminish the validity of the punishment?

[Rustinho]

I think its a very good thing that it will be debated in parliament if there is sufficient public opinion that it should be. This country is supposed to be a liberal democracy and not a dictatorship.

I have very little doubt that once all the arguments are rolled out in a sensible debate that the usual conclusion that one would expect from a civilised country will prevail. i.e. the bad side of the argument has such severe consequences that the death penalty will not be re-introduced.

1. Once the death penalty has been performed, there is no going back on it. You can't bring that person back to life or give them compensation.
2. This means that the appeals process would need to be extremely rigorous to ensure that either someone who was not guilty, mentally ill or someone with whatever other reasonable extenuating circumstances is not deprived of their life unneccessarily or incorrectly.
3. The extent of this appeals process would mean that any cost saving of excecuting people rather than imprisoning them would be irrelevant (look at the US for example where people stay on death row for 10-20 years or more)
4. "Life should mean life" and other crime/punishment arguments are not part of the "should people be executed?" discussion.
5. Once the above points have been settled the debate over which crimes should have the death penalty become irrelevant because any apparent advantages to the death penalty have been logically dismissed.

Personally I think the death penalty debate is an easy label for people to get a focus on because they're worried about other things with regard to the justice system. Its the sort of thing that makes good television cos you can get the "hang 'em flog 'em" brigade up against the "all they need is a hug & a nice holiday" mob.

A more sensible debate to have would be to decide:
a. What will make criminals more likely to be caught?
b. What consequences would make a criminal decide the crime just isn't worth it?
c. How do you rehabilitate criminals back into society upon their release?
d. How do you educate/influence the public not to commit crime in the first place?

But that would probably be too complicated for a substantial proportion of the public to understand and (more importantly) wouldn't make very interesting television, which is why Mr Apache is so spot on with his comments about how Joe Public shouldn't be responsible for legislation.

Thats my tuppence worth anyway. (Only tuppence? I reckon there's almost a tenner's worth there!) lol

[Sclerotic Hen]

It could depend on how you see the purpose of prisons.

1. As a means of punishment
2. As a means of keeping society safer by containing people who have transgressed society's rules
3. A place of reform where people can be taught the errors of their ways before being released.

Combination of all of the above perhaps?

[sabreuk]

@albanach if you read the link that Vince put up it said that only child killers and cop and yes I mean police killers are being looked at, if you read my post correctly I said if you do commit murder then that sentence ie death penalty should be given to all those that have committed murder not just for the above 2 cases.

[Sancho]

Sancho - interesting. If someone was allowed to choose their punishment, does that diminish the validity of the punishment?

Not if the only thing they can choose is to die. Yes, it is potentially an 'easy way out' but who cares? They won't do anyone any harm dead and I've never really understood the point of punisihing people indefinitely. What's the benefit of having them punished, they'll never have the opportunity to change their ways.

The best argument I've heard against my idea, when I say that I'd rather die than go to jail, is that that's the reason why I'm not a criminal - because I understand the consequences both in terms of punishment and guilt.

[Predictable Bob]

I fully agree that a large proportion of the population are incapable of making reasoned, rational decisions and they should have no input to any discussions on legislation so ...

Why not round them up and shoot them - that way there'd be plenty of housing for the homeless and the druggies (Assuming any survived the cull) and the criminals would gain a bit of insight into how they're likely to be treated the next time they get convicted !

[Apache]

Typical tankie response.

[Predictable Bob]

Tankie ???

WTF you on about Willis ?

I was a genuine REME REMF and proud of it !

[POPEYE]

I'd have to disaggree with only those two catagorys, murder wether for greed, gain or jelousy should be classed the same wether it's child, cop, bank teller, shop owner etc, there has to be degree's of intent one cannot class say a bank robber who murders in the course of a robbery the same as someone who hits someone else during the course of a fight, the guy bangs his head and dies from it, i think thats classed as "manslaughter" here, 2nd degree murder in the states,

The court system annoys me, the "games" they play, the way they conduct themselves where being a smart mouth'd highly paid barrister can make the difference between a guilty person getting away with it or not, truth and justice have sod all to do with winning or loosing a case,

however all said and done i'd much rather stand trial in this country under our juditial system for all it's faults than most any other country in the world,
i'd rather do my "streatch" in a british jail than anywhere else,

[Apache]

Tankie ???

WTF you on about Willis ?

I was a genuine REME REMF and proud of it !

Apologies Bob, thought you were a tankie. Who's the tankie then?

[madmanc]

OK I usually kill a thread so here goes, and this is in my humble opinion.

Where a person has committed murder and there 100% proof that they committed the murder take Breivik, I feel that sentencing him to a nice warm comfortable cell is a complete waste of time and money, this is the kind of person that should have the death sentence.

Bringing back corporal punishment should be considered as repeat offenders learn nothing and see no reason not to re-offend. People that have had a few bad breaks in life (homeless etc) have less than someone that has offended against society so why should they be able to play pool, watch TV and generally have things in life some people never get. I know that some prisons are bad and the reason that they have all these niceties is to help the officers.


As for the general population being able to understand the ramification this kind of issue I am with you Apache, I doubt that e-petitions would be take that seriously after the first few.

Take Big Brother why has it come back after it was voted as time for retirement.

[Tallyman]

The biggest problem with leaving something like this to be debated in Parliament is that the people there are not those best suited to decide. Many of those in Parliament today have never held down a proper job, haven't a clue what it's like for ordinary people to have to put up with all the "vermin" that infest our country these days and only got there because they chose to cosy up to the party that's big in their area or lied the most to the electorate to get in. So how is that any different to letting the public decide?

Totally agree though on the sentence having to be served in full and that life = full life, i.e. they should die in prison (and the sooner the better).