Guest MattP Posted 26 February 2014 Posted 26 February 2014 One sent down for 45 years and the other told he will die in Prison. Why? Why can't we just put both down? It's clear they did it, They even admitted it. I understand you can't bring the death penalty in and use it too often for example of things you can't 100% prove, but this is quite clearly 100% proven it was them, there is no doubt. Just put them down, my tax is wasted enough let alone keeping these cunts living and breathing. I don't think the death penalty should be used in this case, for a start off it's what they wanted. You would be martyring them, they wanted to die at the scene rather than in prison. Not interested in money either, I'd rather spend more to make them suffer if I could, I hope the most brutal opressive time any man can feel awaits them in prison., hopefully the guards can turn a blind eye every now and then. Having said all that, when Labour get back in and appoint Peter Hain to a position they'll probably be back on the streets again like the IRA terrorits were who murdered British soldiers after we have to make a concession to some Islamist group in the future. If that ever happens, take everything back I've just said.
Matt Posted 26 February 2014 Posted 26 February 2014 You either have the death penalty or you don't, you can't change the law after each crime is committed. Ok, so let me rephrase the question why can't we bring the death penalty in. On the basis you can100% prove it is the person who has commited the crime - Obviously the crimes/offenses would have to be set out and reviewed. In this case certainly the death penalty should suffice. Obviously it is only used in extreme cases and can't be used 'willy nilly' but I see no reason why it couldn't be used in this case.
Rincewind Posted 26 February 2014 Posted 26 February 2014 45 years in solitary versus being made a martyer which would you preferi?
Matt Posted 26 February 2014 Posted 26 February 2014 45 years in solitary versus being made a martyer which would you preferi? It's not a question of what i'd prefer. It's a point of what i'd rather my money spent on or not and i'd rather it not spent on him living anymore. Much better things could be done with the money.
bovril Posted 26 February 2014 Posted 26 February 2014 They want to be martyrs, fvck em. Let them rot in prison for 50 years and when everyone has forgotten them in 10 years times and they realise they have thrown away their lives for nothing and they've still got another 40 years of misery that'll be the best punishment of all. Exactly.
broughtonblue Posted 26 February 2014 Posted 26 February 2014 Bring back stocks. Put them in the middle of a city center somewhere and just let people kick them to death. Eye for an eye
Zingari Posted 26 February 2014 Posted 26 February 2014 would they really be seen as martyrs if they were executed ? why would they be seen anymore as martyrs than the countless numbers of murderers who have been executed throughout history?
MooseBreath Posted 26 February 2014 Posted 26 February 2014 It's not a question of what i'd prefer. It's a point of what i'd rather my money spent on or not and i'd rather it not spent on him living anymore. Much better things could be done with the money. One innocent life saved because another potential terrorist thinks twice about spending his whole life in jail and its money well spent imo.
marko Posted 26 February 2014 Posted 26 February 2014 One sent down for 45 years and the other told he will die in Prison. Why? Why can't we just put both down? It's clear they did it, They even admitted it. I understand you can't bring the death penalty in and use it too often for example of things you can't 100% prove, but this is quite clearly 100% proven it was them, there is no doubt. Just put them down, my tax is wasted enough let alone keeping these cunts living and breathing. It actually costs significantly more to execute someone than imprison someone for life. The extended amount of time in court, legal fees, numerous levels of post-conviction appeal, being on death row for years and years before execution.
Guest MattP Posted 26 February 2014 Posted 26 February 2014 It actually costs significantly more to execute someone than imprison someone for life. The extended amount of time in court, legal fees, numerous levels of post-conviction appeal, being on death row for years and years before execution. Well that depends on your legal system. I guarantee in North Korea in doesn't cost more
pSinatra Posted 26 February 2014 Posted 26 February 2014 Feed them to the pigs "they will go through a body that weighs 200 lbs in about 8 minutes"
Strokes Posted 26 February 2014 Posted 26 February 2014 Feed them to the pigs "they will go through a body that weighs 200 lbs in about 8 minutes" Eaten by pork, stick that in your Jihad.
marko Posted 26 February 2014 Posted 26 February 2014 Feed them to the pigs "they will go through a body that weighs 200 lbs in about 8 minutes" "That means that a single pig can consume two pounds of uncooked flesh every minute. Hence the expression, "as greedy as a pig"."
Harry - LCFC Posted 26 February 2014 Posted 26 February 2014 I sometimes think people speaking out for capital punishment are doing so because of a of a knee-jerk reaction to a recent case. It is understandable to want a particularly vile criminal killed. But stepping back from the anger, do we really want a system that risks taking an innocent life? Prison is easily the better punishment in my view so I think the cost argument is the only valid one. Since I'd insist on there being absolute certainty before an execution it'd end up being very expensive. Even then, once the state has someone in captivity they've done all they need to do. Have them removed from society forever and they're effectively dead anyway. Well that depends on your legal system. I guarantee in North Korea in doesn't cost more We'd do it properly of course so it would end up costing a significant amount. Be interesting to see a few studies on the cost of the two.
marko Posted 26 February 2014 Posted 26 February 2014 I sometimes think people speaking out for capital punishment are doing so because of a of a knee-jerk reaction to a recent case. It is understandable to want a particularly vile criminal killed. But stepping back from the anger, do we really want a system that risks taking an innocent life? Prison is easily the better punishment in my view so I think the cost argument is the only valid one. Since I'd insist on there being absolute certainty before an execution it'd end up being very expensive. Even then, once the state has someone in captivity they've done all they need to do. Have them removed from society forever and they're effectively dead anyway. We'd do it properly of course so it would end up costing a significant amount. Be interesting to see a few studies on the cost of the two. There have been plenty of studies done already. Here are a few if you fancy a read: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411625_md_death_penalty.pdf http://www.ccfaj.org/documents/reports/dp/official/FINAL%20REPORT%20DEATH%20PENALTY.pdf http://www.deathpenalty.org/downloads/The_Hidden_Death_Tax.pdf
Zingari Posted 26 February 2014 Posted 26 February 2014 I'm not doubting these studies regarding the relative cost of life imprisonment v death penalty , but I really can't remember the cost to the taxpayer being touted as a reason to end capital punishment .
ADK Posted 26 February 2014 Posted 26 February 2014 I'm not sure "cost to the tax payer" is the right thing to argue about in cases like these.
marko Posted 26 February 2014 Posted 26 February 2014 I'm not doubting these studies regarding the relative cost of life imprisonment v death penalty , but I really can't remember the cost to the taxpayer being touted as a reason to end capital punishment . I'm not saying it is, I was just pointing out the common misconception that it's less expensive to the taxpayer if heinous criminals are executed as opposed to imprisoned for life.
Zingari Posted 26 February 2014 Posted 26 February 2014 I'm not saying it is, I was just pointing out the common misconception that it's less expensive to the taxpayer if heinous criminals are executed as opposed to imprisoned for life. Has it really cost less to keep Myra Hindley in jail than it did to hang Ruth Ellis ? Has it really cost less to keep Ian Brady locked up than it cost to hang James Hanratty ? Where is the figures that would prove this ? i'm not trying to make judgements about whether or not capital punishment should have been used in any of these cases , i just find it odd that the claim is made execution actually costs more .
Bert Posted 26 February 2014 Posted 26 February 2014 The complete scumbags would be better off dead - Let them suffer in prison.
Webbo Posted 26 February 2014 Posted 26 February 2014 Has it really cost less to keep Myra Hindley in jail than it did to hang Ruth Ellis ? Has it really cost less to keep Ian Brady locked up than it cost to hang James Hanratty ? Where is the figures that would prove this ? i'm not trying to make judgements about whether or not capital punishment should have been used in any of these cases , i just find it odd that the claim is made execution actually costs more . I agree. Even though on balance I'm more against the death penalty than in favour I can't believe it's cheaper.
harpendenfox Posted 26 February 2014 Posted 26 February 2014 I'd lock them up but make them do something mind numbingly boring but socially useful in order to earn food credits.
Harry - LCFC Posted 26 February 2014 Posted 26 February 2014 I'm not sure "cost to the tax payer" is the right thing to argue about in cases like these. I agree with you. It's just that cost seems the only decent reason left to support capital punishment. Prison is harsher and it's the correct thing to do in principle in my view.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.