Super Arj Posted 24 January 2008 Posted 24 January 2008 if you kill you should be killed but before that you should have to face 30 years imprisonment as punishment if anyone kills they shouldnt be allowed out again
ozleicester Posted 25 January 2008 Posted 25 January 2008 no, They should be punished, and if posible rehabilitated, at the very least we can learn from them in the hope that we can prevent something similar occuring in the future. And, as stated earlier, if the death penalty is brought back then "the state" becomes a murddiddlyurderer.
Russell352 Posted 25 January 2008 Posted 25 January 2008 an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind!
Zingari Posted 25 January 2008 Posted 25 January 2008 an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind! yes ,and in the world of the blind , the man who works at Hillarys is king ( or something like that)
Rincewind Posted 25 January 2008 Posted 25 January 2008 Its about even now in the poll. I doubt it'll happen even though I believe the job of executioner is still around and a set of gallows is maintained in working order. What type of person would apply for the job and what qualifications and experience would you need? Anyone of a nervous dispersition would be ruled out as would anyone that is too eager. Relatives of victims has been suggested but this would be an act of revenge rather than justice despite claims of the reverse. Is the death penalty a deterrant though? Prior to 1063 (great train robbery) crooks rarely carried guns. After the robbers received sentences of up to 30 years armed robberies were more frequent. The thought being 'I may get 30 years anyway, As for answers and solutions I am not qualified or clever enough give any. The whole thing is much too complex but I am sure of one thing. The answer will not be found soley from reading the editorials of The Mail and The Sun.
Fox You Forest Posted 25 January 2008 Posted 25 January 2008 I think if someone commits "murder" they should stay in prison, for the rest of their lives without parole. I agree, None of this 25 year's rubbish. Death sentence would be far to easy for them.
Thracian Posted 25 January 2008 Posted 25 January 2008 if you killyou should be killed but before that you should have to face 30 years imprisonment as punishment if anyone kills they shouldnt be allowed out again How does that affect our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan? Or drivers who kill with their cars? Or people who are begged to end the lives of their loved ones? Or people who kill someone "accidentally" or in a fit of uncharacteristic or temporary madness? It seems very rare that someone is killed or murdered for no reason at all. Even with street crime if you are, say, 15 and are required/coerced/persuaded to join a gang and they say they'll kill you "now" unless you stab someone to death, what do you do? I'm offering no answers. I'm just trying to get you to put yourself in some situations and judge whether the question of punishment for "killing someone" is ever simple. I don't believe it is. "Crime, or apparent crime, and punishment" is an extraordinarily complex subject - and the more so when our own leaders, the people who would be responsible for any crime and punishment regime, themselves act so hypocritically.
Ultra Posted 25 January 2008 Posted 25 January 2008 The death penalty has hardly been a deterrent in the states. And there have been plenty of examples of executions of those whose guilt was far from proved beyond reasonable doubt. It's often been described as state-sponsored lynching. I'm glad Europe has moved on from that.
Zingari Posted 25 January 2008 Posted 25 January 2008 The death penalty has hardly been a deterrent in the states. And there have been plenty of examples of executions of those whose guilt was far from proved beyond reasonable doubt. It's often been described as state-sponsored lynching. I'm glad Europe has moved on from that. yes indeed and who knows , maybe one day we may move on from threatening each other with baseball bats etc
Daggers Posted 25 January 2008 Posted 25 January 2008 yes indeed and who knows , maybe one day we may move on from threatening each other with baseball bats etc
Joe. Posted 25 January 2008 Posted 25 January 2008 No. Life imprisonment would be much more fitting. And I mean life, none of this 14 year bollocks.
danny. Posted 25 January 2008 Posted 25 January 2008 Even with street crime if you are, say, 15 and are required/coerced/persuaded to join a gang and they say they'll kill you "now" unless you stab someone to death, what do you do? no excuses for the chav scum, they can't say they were forced to stab an innocent person to death for no reason, it's disgusting and wrong, not matter if their "mates" threaten them or not.
Rincewind Posted 26 January 2008 Posted 26 January 2008 In war time you are put in front of a firing squad if you refuse to take part in a raid on an enemy village and shoot women and children. In some areas of Britain gangs regard themselves as being in a war.
Daggers Posted 26 January 2008 Posted 26 January 2008 This thread is teaching me so much about modern inner city culture. It would be handy if someone could give a guide on useful phrases to use if one ever got stuck in gang territory through a broken down car or poor rail service or somesuch.
CupidStunt Posted 26 January 2008 Posted 26 January 2008 I dont care if its a deterant or not If you kill someone,and you mean to kill someone,then death is the answer Bring back public hanging in town halls i say
Zingari Posted 26 January 2008 Posted 26 January 2008 its 50-50 hang half of 'em then or all of them until they're half dead ; let the people decide
MPH Posted 27 January 2008 Posted 27 January 2008 The death penalty has hardly been a deterrent in the states. And there have been plenty of examples of executions of those whose guilt was far from proved beyond reasonable doubt. It's often been described as state-sponsored lynching. I'm glad Europe has moved on from that. actually thats not quite true.... I looked into it. Not all states have the death penalty.. There was a noticeable difference between states having the death penalty and those that dont... Needless to say those that dont have the death penalty have a higher murder rate.... Having said that i voted against the death penalty anyway.. hard labor i say with no possibility of parole. EDIT: What would be a much better way to look at it to keep your murder rate down would be to look at HOW they murder...... Guns being the most used weapons.. USA has one of the highest murder by guns record in the world, now without wishing to get too lengthy... we have approx 60 million in UK america gave birth to its 300 millionth resident last year. their population is 5 times bigger than ours but their murder by guns ratio is much higher than that difference.. Japan however is where its at. . The police there have the power to search someone's home who they even SUSPECT might have a gun... needless to say they have the lowest murder rate by guns in the world... There are other weapons used of course and you wont ever eradicate murder, im sure. but the point was simple - Availability of weapons increases the amount of murders. Absolutle pointless bit of info there, sorry.
steve7 Posted 27 January 2008 Posted 27 January 2008 I think if someone commits "murder" they should stay in prison, for the rest of their lives without parole. Agree. Prisons are overcrowded which means murderers, rapists, paedos etc are not given the sentence they deserve. Either they are let out early or are given bail. How many times do we need to hear that a murder has been committed by an offender, that either the police knew about, or that he was on bail, or that he had previously been convicted of murder, rape etc. The guy who was handicapped is a prime example. So is the father who was kicked to death for stopping 2 youths from damaging his car - one of them was on bail. In this day and age there is enough evidence to ensure 100% that the criminal system get the right man. And for crimes such as murder and rape then there should be only one outcome. To put it another way would you like to know that your taxes ensure these murderers, rapists and paedo live the life of riley inside. I think it costs something like £70k per year to keep Ian Huntley locked up. I don't know why I should pay to keep these monsters.
Rincewind Posted 27 January 2008 Posted 27 January 2008 Also in America different states have different poverty levels and drug abuse levels. We have to tackle the causes of crime before we look for the solutions and punishments. In Victorian times you could be hung for stealing a loaf of bread but how many middle class people needed to steal a loaf of bread? A murder was more likely to be investigated if it was a member of the aristocracy that was done in rather than a person of a humble background. Its only in the past 100 years or so that crimes against the lower classes have been taken notice of because of media coverage has increased. Before the figures did not count into the statistics.
Lineker's Left Foot Posted 27 January 2008 Posted 27 January 2008 I made this thread because of the murder of that handicapped guy a few days ago.It said the one youth had already commited murder. So i thought: if the youth had had the death penalty then the second person wouldn't be dead right now. So should we bring back the death penalty. I say Your thoughts/opinions please. YES !! I believe in a harsh, criminal justice system for all, with the death penalty and even torture. As an ex-Assistant Psychologist who worked in the Prison Service, I have seen the easy life these prisoners get !! We need to make it harsher.. My solution to prison is this:- 1. Build all prisons on ships out at sea. 2. Prison staff should work on prisons similar to those on oil-rigs e.g. 2 weeks on, 2 off and fly out to work on the ships. 3. Prisoners should not be allowed visits from family .. only contact via web-cam like meetings on the PC Only this, may make them stop and think about their actions. Justice, for victims of crime is what I say !!
Rincewind Posted 27 January 2008 Posted 27 January 2008 What about when they leave prison? The only trade they will know is the one that got them put inside in the first place. Plus too harsh treatment will harden them and they'll take it out on the public if/when released.
Thracian Posted 27 January 2008 Posted 27 January 2008 YES !! I believe in a harsh, criminal justice system for all, with the death penalty and even torture. As an ex-Assistant Psychologist who worked in the Prison Service, I have seen the easy life these prisoners get !! We need to make it harsher.. My solution to prison is this:-1. Build all prisons on ships out at sea. 2. Prison staff should work on prisons similar to those on oil-rigs e.g. 2 weeks on, 2 off and fly out to work on the ships. 3. Prisoners should not be allowed visits from family .. only contact via web-cam like meetings on the PC Only this, may make them stop and think about their actions. Justice, for victims of crime is what I say !! Didn't they or don't they already have a prison ship off Portland Bill? How has that worked out, assuming I'm not mistaken?
davieG Posted 27 January 2008 Posted 27 January 2008 YES !! I believe in a harsh, criminal justice system for all, with the death penalty and even torture. As an ex-Assistant Psychologist who worked in the Prison Service, I have seen the easy life these prisoners get !! We need to make it harsher.. My solution to prison is this:-1. Build all prisons on ships out at sea. 2. Prison staff should work on prisons similar to those on oil-rigs e.g. 2 weeks on, 2 off and fly out to work on the ships. 3. Prisoners should not be allowed visits from family .. only contact via web-cam like meetings on the PC Only this, may make them stop and think about their actions. Justice, for victims of crime is what I say !! Not content with luxury prisons you now want to give them life time cruises away from nagging member of their families.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.