Woolwich

[ADK]

If they had killed one of my family I think I would want them dead. I would be quite happy if they were killed to be honest. Either way we aren't bringing back the death penalty and it is illegal under the EU anyway.

[marko]

 

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 .

 

 

Well if you have a read up on the subject it's clear that it's not just a claim, but it is more expensive to execute people.

 

As I previously stated, there's a lot more court time and legal fees involved when pursuing the death penalty. There are countless avenues of appeal in death penalty cases which cost both time and money. Life imprisonment is one trial, one appeal, which is far, far cheaper. It is also more expensive to keep an inmate on death row than it is to house them in the general population.

[I am Rod Hull]

I'd lock them up but make them do something mind numbingly boring but socially useful in order to earn food credits.

 

FT mods?

[ADK]

I don't see either method of punishment as necessarily costing more or less. The death penalty might cost more if you allow 100000 appeals and don't get on with the job. It certainly doesn't cost that much to take someone out and shoot them.

 

Likewise life imprisonment will cost more or less dependent on what expense you go to with regards prisons. Having seen the state of some US prisons and knowing the legal culture in the US I can quite believe it is cheaper to dump someone in an overcrowded prison indefinitely than pursuing the drawn out process of enacting the death penalty.

 

But it's not a money issue, it's a moral one. Is it ever right for the state to kill someone in cold blood?

[Zingari]

Well if you have a read up on the subject it's clear that it's not just a claim, but it is more expensive to execute people.

 

As I previously stated, there's a lot more court time and legal fees involved when pursuing the death penalty. There are countless avenues of appeal in death penalty cases which cost both time and money. Life imprisonment is one trial, one appeal, which is far, far cheaper. It is also more expensive to keep an inmate on death row than it is to house them in the general population.

So, are you stating quite categorically that it was more expensive to hang Hanratty and Ellis than it would have been if given  life sentences ?

Are you saying it has been cheaper to keep Hindley and Brady in prison than if they had been hanged ?

It seems very hard to accept whatever statistics and estimations of legal costs etc are offered up as evidence .

 

Ive got no particular axe to grind on the subject , but it's one of those things that make me believe that we the people can be convinced of anything if the right people are trying to prove it .

[Smudge]

 You either have the death penalty or you don't, you can't change the law after each crime is committed.

Food for a Monty Python sketch there. 

[Strokes]

We should use them for testing experiments, more humane than using animals.

[Jon the Hat]

He'll no you can't kill scum like this. Way to easy a way out.

[Zingari]

He'll no you can't kill scum like this. Way to easy a way out.

I've heard of lots of examples of prisoners trying to get a death sentence commuted to life imprisonment , i've heard of very few trying to do the opposite

[MooseBreath]

I've heard of lots of examples of prisoners trying to get a death sentence commuted to life imprisonment , i've heard of very few trying to do the opposite

I'm sure they actually stated on record that they wanted to be martyrs

[marko]

So, are you stating quite categorically that it was more expensive to hang Hanratty and Ellis than it would have been if given  life sentences ?

Are you saying it has been cheaper to keep Hindley and Brady in prison than if they had been hanged ?

It seems very hard to accept whatever statistics and estimations of legal costs etc are offered up as evidence .

 

Ive got no particular axe to grind on the subject , but it's one of those things that make me believe that we the people can be convinced of anything if the right people are trying to prove it .

 

That's quite ironic coming from the forum conspiracy theorist!

 

I never said that. I'm simply pointing out the expense of a modern day capital punishment regime, as if it were ever to be implemented over again (which it won't) then I'd imagine a similar system to the US would be adopted.

 

By the way, it's not just any Tom, Dick or Harry who came up with the report.

[Jon the Hat]

I've heard of lots of examples of prisoners trying to get a death sentence commuted to life imprisonment , i've heard of very few trying to do the opposite

Probably because that isn't an avenue open to them. Two guys who ran towards police hoping to be killed and have stated they wanted to be martyred should not under any circumstances be given a death sentence.

[Zingari]

I'm sure they actually stated on record that they wanted to be martyrs

if they really wanted that and they'd carried on with a killing spree they would have been shot without trial , 

 

how many are now considered martyrs ?

[The Year Of The Fox]

I'd pay good money to get my hands on them

[MooseBreath]

if they really wanted that and they'd carried on with a killing spree they would have been shot without trial ,

how many are now considered martyrs ?

They tried to get shot, that's why they hung around at the scene and attempted to attack the police when they arrived.

Like the many Muslim suicide bombers, these guys wanted to be martyrs. I'm not sure why you're resisting that notion?

[Zingari]

That's quite ironic coming from the forum conspiracy theorist!

 

I never said that. I'm simply pointing out the expense of a modern day capital punishment regime, as if it were ever to be implemented over again (which it won't) then I'd imagine a similar system to the US would be adopted.

 

By the way, it's not just any Tom, Dick or Harry who came up with the report.

So, basically capital punishment  didn't used to be more expensive than life imprisonment   , it just got more expensive since that time   ?  

[marko]

So, basically capital punishment  didn't used to be more expensive than life imprisonment   , it just got more expensive since that time   ?

 

Basically, yes. Also, let's not hide the fact we're not comparing like for like.

 

Read the reports, Zing.

[Mike Oxlong]

I've heard of lots of examples of prisoners trying to get a death sentence commuted to life imprisonment , i've heard of very few trying to do the opposite

Gary Gilmore opposed those seeking to overturn his death sentence. The Executioner's Song by Norman Mailer is a very good read.

[Jon the Hat]

So, basically capital punishment didn't used to be more expensive than life imprisonment , it just got more expensive since that time ?

You find that hard to believe?

[Zingari]

You find that hard to believe?

Yes i find it very difficult to believe that it was cheaper to hang someone in the 60's than give them life sentences , but at the very same time that capital punishment was abolished , within a few years the very opposite became true. doesn't this sound like one heck of a coincidence ?

 

Let's get this straight , it was cheaper to hang someone when capital punishment was in effect  right ? But now  it's not ? Why ? Don't you even consider the possibility that we can be made to believe anything if that is the aim ?

[Alf Bentley]

Life is unbelievably precious and untimely death causes great loss to family and friends left behind, so it is an appalling act to kill someone (except in necessary self-defence, unavoidable war etc.).

 

These 2 meatheads committed a desecration of human life that is beyond most others that I can think of.

 

However, even in as an atrocious a case as this, where they are clearly guilty, I don't think that the response of the state (representing our society) should be: "You've done something so wrong in killing a man in cold blood, that we are going to kill you in cold blood". It's wrong for individuals to murder and it's wrong for the state to murder. I'd believe that even if they didn't want to be martyrs (which they do) - even if we would see them whimpering and begging all the way to the scaffold. State-sponsored murder demeans us all.

 

They'll serve long, long sentences - probably the rest of their lives, I'd guess. Maybe at some point in the coming decades, one or both will start to realise the gravity of what they've done: destroyed and demeaned the life of one human being, caused irreparable damage to the lives of those close to him - while, incidentally, ensuring that their own lives are completely wasted. Hard to imagine a greater pain than that...certainly a greater pain than quick vengeance / easy martyrdom - and ironically, probably a greater pain than if they carry on forever with their mule-headed bigotry, blinding themselves to what they've done, while sewing mailsacks for 50 years or whatever... What a monstrous waste of life.

[DennisNedry]

I find comfort in the fact that the 2 men are probably living in utter fear for their lives in prison. Hopefully their fellow prisoners are psychologically torturing them, driving them insane with worry, before somebody slashes them across the throat with a hidden razor blade.

Better than them getting a painless dignified death by lethal injection.

 

Even better than that, why not just go North Korea on their asses? I'm sure you'd get a lot of sadistic bastards pay to watch a couple of pitbulls vs adabaljo

[The Doctor]

Well that depends on your legal system.

I guarantee in North Korea in doesn't cost more

While the cost argument is based off the us judicial system, does anyone really think we wouldn't just copy the us if we brought the death penalty back?

[Zingari]

Life is unbelievably precious and untimely death causes great loss to family and friends left behind, so it is an appalling act to kill someone (except in necessary self-defence, unavoidable war etc.).

 

These 2 meatheads committed a desecration of human life that is beyond most others that I can think of.

 

However, even in as an atrocious a case as this, where they are clearly guilty, I don't think that the response of the state (representing our society) should be: "You've done something so wrong in killing a man in cold blood, that we are going to kill you in cold blood". It's wrong for individuals to murder and it's wrong for the state to murder. I'd believe that even if they didn't want to be martyrs (which they do) - even if we would see them whimpering and begging all the way to the scaffold. State-sponsored murder demeans us all.

 

They'll serve long, long sentences - probably the rest of their lives, I'd guess. Maybe at some point in the coming decades, one or both will start to realise the gravity of what they've done: destroyed and demeaned the life of one human being, caused irreparable damage to the lives of those close to him - while, incidentally, ensuring that their own lives are completely wasted. Hard to imagine a greater pain than that...certainly a greater pain than quick vengeance / easy martyrdom - and ironically, probably a greater pain than if they carry on forever with their mule-headed bigotry, blinding themselves to what they've done, while sewing mailsacks for 50 years or whatever... What a monstrous waste of life.

I agree with the sentiments of that  apart from the term " unavoidable war " 

 

i know i'm sounding like an old 60's hippy , but I don't think there is or ever has been such a thing as an unavoidable war  . Most of us throughout history have been but pawns in  a game played out by an elite that really has no feeling or compassion for human kind .and the stated and historical reasons for wars are nothing to do with the actual reasons 

 

Power and more power  is the only goal of a small elite that play us for fools and disposable chattels  , it's not some moralistic intent to spread Christianity or some other religious doctrine like back in the empire days,  or more recently to give democracy to the common people or to rid them of terrorism .

 

 

flippin heck , the booze is talkin alright tonight, i'll regret this claptrap come the morrow  

[Rincewind]

I don't think I have had as much as you (well tonight) but from a quick read I agree with you. At one time the kings and dukes used to lead the ravel into battle but over the last 100 years or so they have been five miles back moving toy soldiers over a map. In the last 50 years it has been from the governments state office. The only exceptions are the rebels. There may have been others but in the main it is now politicians that decide.