rulefan
Tour Winner
How many unsafe verdicts have come to light recently? Our jury system is very vulnerable to the whims of the jury members and inefficient police forces. The police are no cleverer nor more moral than the population at large.
Breaking news on healthcare worker
- Thread starter adam6177
- Start date
bobmac
Major Champion
They have come to light recently though modern scientific techniques that weren't available decades ago
I'm a 'no' for the death penalty. Two things, 1) Its state sponsored murder, and 2) how many convictions have there been for murder that have subsequently found to be unsafe.
Since 1975 there's been 40 murder convictions overturned. That's 40 people who would have been sentenced to death... that's a big oops!
But I am in favour of life meaning life, and no parole at all. They do a 40 hour week which buys them the toothpaste/soap etc. No TV, no papers and a very limited library.
Since 1975 there's been 40 murder convictions overturned. That's 40 people who would have been sentenced to death... that's a big oops!
But I am in favour of life meaning life, and no parole at all. They do a 40 hour week which buys them the toothpaste/soap etc. No TV, no papers and a very limited library.
HomerJSimpson
Hall of Famer
The death penalty certainly doesn't always appear to be a deterrent in the US and would never be an advocate of it coming back here. Let's see how this case pans out and justice take its course. However, if the verdict is guilty on all counts then prison has to be seen as a harsh place to be for the rest of this womans life. No access to papers, TV and frankly solitary confinement. Given what we have as a punishment 23 hours a day of solitary would seem to be the hardest form of prison we could offer. No doubt it won't happen and they'll be in a cell with access to everything and be able to bask in the infamy of the crimes as human rights would be infringed. We can be and at times are a mixed up place
D
Deleted member 16999
Guest
I get all this life should mean life, restrict this, do that, well guess what, we don’t and currently the legal system and current punishments isn’t a deterrent either.
I’m not advocating the death penalty for all murderers, I’m saying give the choice to judges as another string to their bow.
These terrorists wanting to commit mass murder or those type that killed Fusilier Lee Rigby in their 20’s, let’s lock them up for 50-70 years keeping them fed and watered, no thanks, their conviction isn’t going to be overturned, let a judge decide.
Last point, why does a civilised society only work one way?
I’m not advocating the death penalty for all murderers, I’m saying give the choice to judges as another string to their bow.
These terrorists wanting to commit mass murder or those type that killed Fusilier Lee Rigby in their 20’s, let’s lock them up for 50-70 years keeping them fed and watered, no thanks, their conviction isn’t going to be overturned, let a judge decide.
Last point, why does a civilised society only work one way?
gmc40
Head Pro
I don't agree with the death penalty primarily because of the risk of miscarriages of justice. One person being executed who is innocent would be one too many.
Re: cost, I'm pretty certain I've read that the time a person is on death row, along with the appeals etc actually results in more cost than someone sentenced to life imprisonment.
As for it being a deterrent, is there evidence that it does work as a deterrent?
Re: cost, I'm pretty certain I've read that the time a person is on death row, along with the appeals etc actually results in more cost than someone sentenced to life imprisonment.
As for it being a deterrent, is there evidence that it does work as a deterrent?
bluewolf
Money List Winner
Can't argue with that. Attempting to prove your moral superiority by stooping to the exact same level is vengeance, not justice.
Robster59
Tour Rookie
The terrorists refer to want to die, they want to give their life for the cause. Letting them rot in jail where everybody forgets about them and nobody cares is a worse punishment than executing them.I get all this life should mean life, restrict this, do that, well guess what, we don’t and currently the legal system and current punishments isn’t a deterrent either.
I’m not advocating the death penalty for all murderers, I’m saying give the choice to judges as another string to their bow.
These terrorists wanting to commit mass murder or those type that killed Fusilier Lee Rigby in their 20’s, let’s lock them up for 50-70 years keeping them fed and watered, no thanks, their conviction isn’t going to be overturned, let a judge decide.
Last point, why does a civilised society only work one way?
And at least one side has to be civilised, otherwise where does that put us?
D
Deleted member 16999
Guest
But being civilised isn’t a deterrent either and these terrorists are looked as heroes and martyrs to their own kind, they are not forgotten about and are remembered by the victims families who suffer every day while the scum bag breathes and is looked after, they don’t rot in jail, everyone of them in our system has a chance of parole at some time.
gmc40
Head Pro
The death penalty isn't a deterrent. One of Lee Rigby's killers wanted to be shot by the police, he wanted to die a 'martyr'. Let him rot I say.
D
Deleted member 16999
Guest
He’s not rotting though and if he really wanted to die he could of done himself in by now.
adam6177
Journeyman Pro
I think that at the level of crimes we're talking about here then is no deterrent..... I honestly dont think the threat of prison is enough and I dont think the threat of dying is enough, they are hell bent on committing the offence.
But I am of the opinion that certain levels of crime deserve to have all your human rights removed and you should be put down.
But I am of the opinion that certain levels of crime deserve to have all your human rights removed and you should be put down.
gmc40
Head Pro
Killing himself without taking anyone else out isn't dying for the cause. No martyrdom for that type of suicide.
It's a term i.e. "let him rot in jail". Basically I'm saying leave him there.
Don Barzini
Assistant Pro
I’m against the death penalty. But not because I have a moral objection to it. I’d happily see the worst criminals be put down without losing any sleep over it.
But I’m against it because of the reality of what it would mean in terms of how it was carried out. Those who are for it seem to think that once the sentence is passed, it would go ahead swiftly, promptly and unchallenged. Rubbish!
The reality would be the same as the US. The guy or gal on death row would launch appeal after appeal after appeal. The lawyers would grow fat off the legal fees (probably paid for by legal aid). There would be a date set, then a last minute stay of execution and the process would start again. Every time this happened, there would be massive press coverage and the victims of the original crime would simply suffer more and more anguish. They’d never get the proper closure that a death penalty would supposedly afford them.
So a system like that? No bloody thanks. Anyone hoping or campaigning for the death penalty would be far wiser hoping or campaigning for more whole life tariffs to be imposed - which is not the same as a “life sentenceâ€.
And to those saying their time should be made as hard and uncomfortable as possible. Anyone who’s worked inside a prison would tell you that applying that sort of mantra simply has the effect of making prisoners more violent and difficult to control. Now of course I’m not saying they should be given a cushy lifestyle. But contrary to what the tabloid press would have you believe, prisons are absolutely horrible places to be in as they are. Faced with the prospect of a whole life tarrif in one? That would be enough to weaken and punish the hardest of human souls.
But I’m against it because of the reality of what it would mean in terms of how it was carried out. Those who are for it seem to think that once the sentence is passed, it would go ahead swiftly, promptly and unchallenged. Rubbish!
The reality would be the same as the US. The guy or gal on death row would launch appeal after appeal after appeal. The lawyers would grow fat off the legal fees (probably paid for by legal aid). There would be a date set, then a last minute stay of execution and the process would start again. Every time this happened, there would be massive press coverage and the victims of the original crime would simply suffer more and more anguish. They’d never get the proper closure that a death penalty would supposedly afford them.
So a system like that? No bloody thanks. Anyone hoping or campaigning for the death penalty would be far wiser hoping or campaigning for more whole life tariffs to be imposed - which is not the same as a “life sentenceâ€.
And to those saying their time should be made as hard and uncomfortable as possible. Anyone who’s worked inside a prison would tell you that applying that sort of mantra simply has the effect of making prisoners more violent and difficult to control. Now of course I’m not saying they should be given a cushy lifestyle. But contrary to what the tabloid press would have you believe, prisons are absolutely horrible places to be in as they are. Faced with the prospect of a whole life tarrif in one? That would be enough to weaken and punish the hardest of human souls.
D
Deleted member 16999
Guest
Were has anyone in favour stated it would go ahead swiftly, promptly and unchallenged?
Extremes on both side will never be introduced, doesn’t stop people on a forum discussing their view point though. :thup:
bobmac
Major Champion
Shouldn't the focus be on prevention not punishment?
The powers that be should be focusing on a deterrent to stop people carrying out such evil murders rather than what to do afterwards, it's too late by then.
The powers that be should be focusing on a deterrent to stop people carrying out such evil murders rather than what to do afterwards, it's too late by then.
Kellfire
Blackballed
bobmac
Major Champion
I didn't say I had all the answers.
Maybe the authorities could find the prison with the worst conditions, take a film crew in and make a documentary about how bad it is.
Then get every school in the country to show it to their pupils.
Maybe the parents of the offenders (if under 18) get involved in the punishment.
Maybe life meaning life as others have said
Last edited:
Don Barzini
Assistant Pro
Were has anyone in favour stated it would go ahead swiftly, promptly and unchallenged?
No-one's said it directly on this thread - I'm talking in general terms really. Whenever I've had discussions (elsewhere) in the past, those who are for it don't seem to realise that the reality would be something like I outlined above. A terrible system, the reality of which would be far worse for the victims and far better for the criminal than putting said criminal in jail for a whole life tarrif with no hope of appeal or release.
D
Deleted member 16999
Guest
But and it’s a big but, if it was re-introduced maybe, just maybe, it would be done with legislation that prevented copying everything wrong with the US System and limit the appeals and time on death row.