Discussion
Already suggested that in response to the abduction thread. It could just as well apply to the stinger.
He'd get my vote too, on that issues alone, and many others, if he could distance his party from the namby pamby liberal wishy washy tree-hugging centre ground of poll chasing politics. We need some politicians who believe in something with passion and are prepared to fight for it.
We've been liberal too long in this country, since the sixties basically, and we are suffering for it. Criminals take the piss because they know they'll get away with it. Kids have no respect (would you?), teachers have no control. Exams get easier, standards fall.
It's pitiful, and it all stems from actions not leading to consequences. The rot starts, as ever, at the top. If you can get away with murder, then its open day on less serious offences, and the leniency filters down into every facet of seciety. The worth of everything is undermined. Simple really.
Kill someone - you die.
Rape someone - you get castrated.
Mug someone - lose a hand, or get branded MUGGER on your forehead.
Rough justice? Maybe, but we are constantly being told how clever forensic evidence is these days. Its time that, for cases where clearcut indesputable evidence is available, the penalty once again fits the crime.
He'd get my vote too, on that issues alone, and many others, if he could distance his party from the namby pamby liberal wishy washy tree-hugging centre ground of poll chasing politics. We need some politicians who believe in something with passion and are prepared to fight for it.
We've been liberal too long in this country, since the sixties basically, and we are suffering for it. Criminals take the piss because they know they'll get away with it. Kids have no respect (would you?), teachers have no control. Exams get easier, standards fall.
It's pitiful, and it all stems from actions not leading to consequences. The rot starts, as ever, at the top. If you can get away with murder, then its open day on less serious offences, and the leniency filters down into every facet of seciety. The worth of everything is undermined. Simple really.
Kill someone - you die.
Rape someone - you get castrated.
Mug someone - lose a hand, or get branded MUGGER on your forehead.
Rough justice? Maybe, but we are constantly being told how clever forensic evidence is these days. Its time that, for cases where clearcut indesputable evidence is available, the penalty once again fits the crime.
Sorry guys don't agree with the death penalty. With the following reasons:
a) Its supposed to be a deterant. To you it may be BUT you're not going to do it anyway. To the people that do these terrible crimes they tend to be either mentally instable anyway and even if they're not they certainly don't belive that they are going to get caught. The deterant simply doesn't work (look at the American states that still have the death penalty).
b) The only other reason is revenge. I'm sorry but revenge doesn't make you feel better, it may seem to at the start but in the long run the pain of losing someone is still there. Killing someone for revenge is no better than the original killer.
Finally introducing the death penalty will if anything allow people to go free. To commit someone to death you have to be very very certain. There is no appeal, no chance of correction if further evidence is found, nothing. All a lawyer has to do to get the b@st@rd off the murder charge would be to introduce some doubt and play on this in front of the jurers. With a life sentence people are more likely to find guilty based upon the facts of the case.
The question comes down to is what is prison for? is it revenge (IMO no), or is it to protect society from a criminal.
a) Its supposed to be a deterant. To you it may be BUT you're not going to do it anyway. To the people that do these terrible crimes they tend to be either mentally instable anyway and even if they're not they certainly don't belive that they are going to get caught. The deterant simply doesn't work (look at the American states that still have the death penalty).
b) The only other reason is revenge. I'm sorry but revenge doesn't make you feel better, it may seem to at the start but in the long run the pain of losing someone is still there. Killing someone for revenge is no better than the original killer.
Finally introducing the death penalty will if anything allow people to go free. To commit someone to death you have to be very very certain. There is no appeal, no chance of correction if further evidence is found, nothing. All a lawyer has to do to get the b@st@rd off the murder charge would be to introduce some doubt and play on this in front of the jurers. With a life sentence people are more likely to find guilty based upon the facts of the case.
The question comes down to is what is prison for? is it revenge (IMO no), or is it to protect society from a criminal.
quote:
Bringing back the death penalty would be good even just for the savings to the tax payer - £55,000 a month to keep a criminal inside a top security prison.
This is a lot cheaper than them getting let off and causing more crime including the cost of finding them again and what about the cost for the next person they murder?
I'm also not sure about your £55k per month quote is there any released figures to back that up or is it as I suspect spin from a politician? eg how many murderers are in the top-security that costs £55k/month? I suspect not many.
I don't think there ever is a case which is open and shut. For example if you get nicked speeding with a photo of you in the car. If it was a death sentence then the lawyer would say "could it be a cloned car and someone that looks similar...." etc. and thats got a photo of you commiting the offenense!! Another example is the O J Simpson case.
>> Edited by smeagol on Saturday 17th August 13:07
Yes indeed, society is heading towards a Caligularic black hole of hell bent depravity and vaccuous, desensitized numbness, where reports of all crimes are met with little more than a shrug and a blank stare.
In all probability though, we are infinately safer and less prone to violent attack or slaughter as individuals than our ancestors, even in our worst hit crime zones. With the exception of the slightly heady post war period, this has truly been the case: from the Norman overlords who ravaged the Angles, Jutes and Saxon settlers, the early Kings whose actions would make Mugabe seem like a 'pretty decent chap,' through to the savage press gangs of the middle ages right up to the early 1800s, the state actually brutalised with as much evil venom as any back street London rapist in 1890 or provincial highwayman of the day (and this time I don't mean our super Chancellor). And that's before you factor in the man made population erradicator of all time, war. We were scrapping with pretty much anyone and everyone all the time so death, disease and hardship in reality made simple muggings, rapings and the like seem pretty tame.
Of course, in our caring sharing 'McWorld' today, we're basically all a bunch of 'Eloy' (see Jules Verne's 'Time machine') - useless, hippy retards with no motivation but to exist and take whatever nasty stuff the bad people chuck at us. It IS nasty but let's not face it head on, let's just pretend it's not that bad and if Tony says so, it might just go away...
Er, no mate. It'll just get worse until we're back in the 1750s with hoardes of vagabonds ready to kill you for a pittance, rape your missus and do God knows what with your kids.
It's ironic that the apologists who oppose capital punishment per se are the same liberals who (rightly and sensibly - like all of us) want to live in a world free of war and all it's horrors but yet at the same time excuse the human abominations who indulge in the basest and most inhumane of activity at a time of general, overall civillity.
Indeed, it is this ignorance of appreciating matters in a broadly historical context that deludes them. All of us will pretty much eschew mindless violence but would rush to the defence of (certainly) loved ones, friends etc, if circumstances were desperate enough.
So PhilShort is quite right. There needs to be a political will. Which there isn't. Tony and his middle class ex-hippies have never seen death and destruction and too many polite dinner parties and bottles of red in Islington have castrated any hope of a decision which, in my guestimation, most would support - the restoration of capital punishment.
As a parent myself, I can only imagine the hell of the latest victims at the hands of a bastard for whom our pitiful society has no detterance. Only excuses, colour TVs and rehab. Sometimes, a line HAS to be drawn and the appeasers take a back seat break. Where genetic and other forensic evidence is beyond challenge then abduction and cold blooded murder (and I am talking about this crime specifically, please note) should be rewarded with a date with Molly Hatchet.
I pray to God these kids are found alive, I really do. No amount of moralising or reason will change this commonly held view. It's basic stuff, really.
In all probability though, we are infinately safer and less prone to violent attack or slaughter as individuals than our ancestors, even in our worst hit crime zones. With the exception of the slightly heady post war period, this has truly been the case: from the Norman overlords who ravaged the Angles, Jutes and Saxon settlers, the early Kings whose actions would make Mugabe seem like a 'pretty decent chap,' through to the savage press gangs of the middle ages right up to the early 1800s, the state actually brutalised with as much evil venom as any back street London rapist in 1890 or provincial highwayman of the day (and this time I don't mean our super Chancellor). And that's before you factor in the man made population erradicator of all time, war. We were scrapping with pretty much anyone and everyone all the time so death, disease and hardship in reality made simple muggings, rapings and the like seem pretty tame.
Of course, in our caring sharing 'McWorld' today, we're basically all a bunch of 'Eloy' (see Jules Verne's 'Time machine') - useless, hippy retards with no motivation but to exist and take whatever nasty stuff the bad people chuck at us. It IS nasty but let's not face it head on, let's just pretend it's not that bad and if Tony says so, it might just go away...
Er, no mate. It'll just get worse until we're back in the 1750s with hoardes of vagabonds ready to kill you for a pittance, rape your missus and do God knows what with your kids.
It's ironic that the apologists who oppose capital punishment per se are the same liberals who (rightly and sensibly - like all of us) want to live in a world free of war and all it's horrors but yet at the same time excuse the human abominations who indulge in the basest and most inhumane of activity at a time of general, overall civillity.
Indeed, it is this ignorance of appreciating matters in a broadly historical context that deludes them. All of us will pretty much eschew mindless violence but would rush to the defence of (certainly) loved ones, friends etc, if circumstances were desperate enough.
So PhilShort is quite right. There needs to be a political will. Which there isn't. Tony and his middle class ex-hippies have never seen death and destruction and too many polite dinner parties and bottles of red in Islington have castrated any hope of a decision which, in my guestimation, most would support - the restoration of capital punishment.
As a parent myself, I can only imagine the hell of the latest victims at the hands of a bastard for whom our pitiful society has no detterance. Only excuses, colour TVs and rehab. Sometimes, a line HAS to be drawn and the appeasers take a back seat break. Where genetic and other forensic evidence is beyond challenge then abduction and cold blooded murder (and I am talking about this crime specifically, please note) should be rewarded with a date with Molly Hatchet.
I pray to God these kids are found alive, I really do. No amount of moralising or reason will change this commonly held view. It's basic stuff, really.
The point that has been missed by several people now, is that capital punishment in itself is not a deterant. The threat of being hung, killed or whatever is no threat if you don't beleive you're going to be caught.
Think about it in speed terms if you knew you were going to get caught and get points on your licence every time you sped you wouldn't speed. Its because you know you are likely to get away with it, you do.
The exact same argument can be made about these criminals that perform these social atrocitites. When they do this crime they do not believe they are going to get caught. The consequences of their actions is never contemplated. The only people that do consider the consequences are reasonable people that wouldn't do the crime in the first place.
So introducing the death penalty would do nothing, except as I have mentioned before allow criminals to get away with it further.
So what is the solution? The answer is relatively simple (harder to execute). You enforce the impression that you are NOT going to get away with it. How is this done? Good parenting is the first port of call. Most children learn the rules of "no" etc. before they are 4. Criminals start with what's called petty crime at an early age (<12) but because of the current system no action can be taken. This is where I believe the system is breaking down. A child >5 should be held resonsible for their actions. They should be held in a prison cell (solitary) initially 8 hours (first offense, calling parents etc.), second 1 week, third 2 weeks and so on. Most parents find this totally acceptable. What does this enforce? the idea that you will get caught and will get punished.
What also needs to be done? More money for the police force to allow more police officers to catch the criminals, equally more money for schools to help staff them to catch and deal with offenders at an early age. Hopefully the cross-referencing between police and schools, in my experienec both the school and police knew the ofenders but hardly anything could be done.
Raising the deterant does nothing....making it clear you will be caught does.
>> Edited by smeagol on Saturday 17th August 14:40
Think about it in speed terms if you knew you were going to get caught and get points on your licence every time you sped you wouldn't speed. Its because you know you are likely to get away with it, you do.
The exact same argument can be made about these criminals that perform these social atrocitites. When they do this crime they do not believe they are going to get caught. The consequences of their actions is never contemplated. The only people that do consider the consequences are reasonable people that wouldn't do the crime in the first place.
So introducing the death penalty would do nothing, except as I have mentioned before allow criminals to get away with it further.
So what is the solution? The answer is relatively simple (harder to execute). You enforce the impression that you are NOT going to get away with it. How is this done? Good parenting is the first port of call. Most children learn the rules of "no" etc. before they are 4. Criminals start with what's called petty crime at an early age (<12) but because of the current system no action can be taken. This is where I believe the system is breaking down. A child >5 should be held resonsible for their actions. They should be held in a prison cell (solitary) initially 8 hours (first offense, calling parents etc.), second 1 week, third 2 weeks and so on. Most parents find this totally acceptable. What does this enforce? the idea that you will get caught and will get punished.
What also needs to be done? More money for the police force to allow more police officers to catch the criminals, equally more money for schools to help staff them to catch and deal with offenders at an early age. Hopefully the cross-referencing between police and schools, in my experienec both the school and police knew the ofenders but hardly anything could be done.
Raising the deterant does nothing....making it clear you will be caught does.
>> Edited by smeagol on Saturday 17th August 14:40
Smeagol
Interesting approach - the bottom up deterrent. But surely your argument is self defeating? "We can't deter you from murder, so we'll deter you from pinching sweets from the corner shop".
I can see the logic, but from where I'm standing that's not a lot different from sending them on holidays for mugging old ladies. What do you do when sending them to their room doesn't work any more? Kids are more sophisticated than that, a night in the cells isn't going to frighten them. Or a week. It'll just enhance their Gansta rep.
I don't buy that capital punishment is not a deterrent. OK, yes there will be some depraved characters who will kill for pleasure regardless of the consequences, and the prospect of hanging is not going to change their actions. But what about the half decent kid persuaded to carry a gun by peer pressure. Don't you think he might think twice about carrying if there was a chance it'd lead to a stretched neck?
Interesting approach - the bottom up deterrent. But surely your argument is self defeating? "We can't deter you from murder, so we'll deter you from pinching sweets from the corner shop".
I can see the logic, but from where I'm standing that's not a lot different from sending them on holidays for mugging old ladies. What do you do when sending them to their room doesn't work any more? Kids are more sophisticated than that, a night in the cells isn't going to frighten them. Or a week. It'll just enhance their Gansta rep.
I don't buy that capital punishment is not a deterrent. OK, yes there will be some depraved characters who will kill for pleasure regardless of the consequences, and the prospect of hanging is not going to change their actions. But what about the half decent kid persuaded to carry a gun by peer pressure. Don't you think he might think twice about carrying if there was a chance it'd lead to a stretched neck?
Gasblaster
But you are rightl; focus. The issue, the thing which prompted your post as I suspected, is child abduction and (God forbid) murder.
We've seen the alternative with the tragic Bulger case. The perpetrators are deemed to have served their sentence, and allowed to get on with their lives. There is no justice in that.
Someone else posted about kids killing before they can legally be held responsible, just to see what it was like. How sick is a society that looks the other way, turns the other cheek, while depravity like that goes on?
quote:Doesn't chemical castration already happen, or have I been watching too much TV?
No Philshort, you start talking about hacking hands off and castration and you lose the argument. It ain't gonna happen.
But you are rightl; focus. The issue, the thing which prompted your post as I suspected, is child abduction and (God forbid) murder.
We've seen the alternative with the tragic Bulger case. The perpetrators are deemed to have served their sentence, and allowed to get on with their lives. There is no justice in that.
Someone else posted about kids killing before they can legally be held responsible, just to see what it was like. How sick is a society that looks the other way, turns the other cheek, while depravity like that goes on?
Have to agree with Smeagol that historically it really isn't that much of a deterent. If you are going to kill, you don't expect to get caught so neither the prison sentence nor the loss of your own life is accepted (expected) as a consequence. Having sat through a murder trial recently, you come to realise that the new breed of young murderer does not see the world at all the way we do. I am sure that some of these "younger" murderers would have some extra fear if there was a real danger of them losing their own life. The guy at the trial I was at thought he would get off, and worst comes to the worst he would sink for 15 years and get out with better contacts. He has no fear of prison at all. He has been in there many times before, and you have to remember that people can adapt to any situation. We didn't always live in nicely built homes.
At least one thing that capital punishment will do is to rid the world of some of the scum that inhibits it. Smeagol you are right that there are implications for the people that are involved in that decision making and it surely should not be upto a jury to decide. Nor should it be mandatory for all murders. It should be upto a judge, and although there are likely to be psychological problems for him to deal with too, s/he would have to make that sacrifice for his/her job, something that doctors and police officers etc have to do too. This would ensure that guilt trips are less common.
I have to agree though, that the majority of the problem is from childhood. And you must agree that there is nothing for one to fear the consequences, if one does not believe those consequences can come about? If however, there was the strong belief (and visible truth) that you would get caught and you would be made to pay, then that will scare you off a lot more. Dirty lawyers also help these new young breed of shitheads by keeping them out of prison using any method they can, merely to ensure a repeated custom paid for by the taxpayer. Great isn't it?
Bring it back, at least as a choice. That in itself is
1)More exciting for newspapers etc.
2)More scary for the criminals
3)Will scare the shit out of the criminals while they wait for the judge to give sentence.
Bit of a heavy subject for a Sat afternoon. Wish I wasn't working!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
At least one thing that capital punishment will do is to rid the world of some of the scum that inhibits it. Smeagol you are right that there are implications for the people that are involved in that decision making and it surely should not be upto a jury to decide. Nor should it be mandatory for all murders. It should be upto a judge, and although there are likely to be psychological problems for him to deal with too, s/he would have to make that sacrifice for his/her job, something that doctors and police officers etc have to do too. This would ensure that guilt trips are less common.
I have to agree though, that the majority of the problem is from childhood. And you must agree that there is nothing for one to fear the consequences, if one does not believe those consequences can come about? If however, there was the strong belief (and visible truth) that you would get caught and you would be made to pay, then that will scare you off a lot more. Dirty lawyers also help these new young breed of shitheads by keeping them out of prison using any method they can, merely to ensure a repeated custom paid for by the taxpayer. Great isn't it?
Bring it back, at least as a choice. That in itself is
1)More exciting for newspapers etc.
2)More scary for the criminals
3)Will scare the shit out of the criminals while they wait for the judge to give sentence.
Bit of a heavy subject for a Sat afternoon. Wish I wasn't working!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2 bodies have been found near Mildenhall, Smeagol, you are a nice bloke, which is why you have feel this way, I've watched news footage of this village being pulled apart by these f**kers and the agony of friends and relatives can't be imagined, I also saw the two accused barely suppressing smiles while they were being interviewed. I'm not such a nice bloke and would gladly crush the living breath from these vile creatures for this crime
Smegol, I know where you're coming from but don't you think in some instances that the perps are just beyond the redemption of man?
Breaking news suggests the two girls' bodies may have been discovered.
If this current abduction isn't tearing you up inside then forgive me but can I ask if you're a parent yourself?
Sorry, buddy but some dogs need putting down and it really is that simple.
Breaking news suggests the two girls' bodies may have been discovered.
If this current abduction isn't tearing you up inside then forgive me but can I ask if you're a parent yourself?
Sorry, buddy but some dogs need putting down and it really is that simple.
Actually if you had the death sentence for speeding it would practically eliminate all intentional speeding.
Risk aversion is a subconsciously calculated product of likelihood of risk and seriousness of consequence.
This is why people accept risk all the time if the consequences are low and the likelihood of that consequence is low. So 3 points is not a big deal, but if you got three points 99% of the time then no-one would speed.
Any argument for the death sentence has to take a non-compassionate stance (like it was said above, its not revenge) and determine that society should not have to pay to keep dangerous individuals who are beyond rehabilitation. Kill them, why not? We live as a community and people should accept that as part of the deal.
If you can remove any sense of doubt in judgement or inconsistency in sentencing then l would agree with it. Why stand about wringing our hands over the fate of some monster. Why should it be our responsibility to retain a worthless life when worthy lives are lost all the time to accidents and malicious intent?
I hear the re-offending rate is very low!
The real sticking point is responsibility for ones own actions. If you have a mentally ill or handicapped person who commits terrible crimes, is it their fault?
If not, how can you sentence them to death? So a mentally ill person with an IQ of 65 would be spared...what about 75? 85? (Note l use IQ as an easily incremental 'disability' measure, l am aware this is not a black and white scenario)
The point is where do you draw the line? People that murder children etc.. could all be said to be mentally ill. (Certainly not normal) but is that enough to divorce them from responsibility and if not, why not?
People are either responsible for their actions regardless of how handicapped, psychopathic or criminally insane they are OR they are not. If not then l assert that neither is anyone, because ultimately we are then simply products of our environment and therefore completely unable to self-determine, and can only remain blameless for any of our actions.
What l am saying is that you either decide to kill all that contavene social norms to the point of being 'evil' as society finds them, (regardless of how mad, poor, oppressed, stupid, young or spastic they are) OR you just let everyone go because you have determined that people are simply not responsible for their own actions.
I think this whole problem can be circumvented by having parental licencing in the first place, to stop people bringing up mashed up versions of their own unique blend of spite and bile.
Risk aversion is a subconsciously calculated product of likelihood of risk and seriousness of consequence.
This is why people accept risk all the time if the consequences are low and the likelihood of that consequence is low. So 3 points is not a big deal, but if you got three points 99% of the time then no-one would speed.
Any argument for the death sentence has to take a non-compassionate stance (like it was said above, its not revenge) and determine that society should not have to pay to keep dangerous individuals who are beyond rehabilitation. Kill them, why not? We live as a community and people should accept that as part of the deal.
If you can remove any sense of doubt in judgement or inconsistency in sentencing then l would agree with it. Why stand about wringing our hands over the fate of some monster. Why should it be our responsibility to retain a worthless life when worthy lives are lost all the time to accidents and malicious intent?
I hear the re-offending rate is very low!
The real sticking point is responsibility for ones own actions. If you have a mentally ill or handicapped person who commits terrible crimes, is it their fault?
If not, how can you sentence them to death? So a mentally ill person with an IQ of 65 would be spared...what about 75? 85? (Note l use IQ as an easily incremental 'disability' measure, l am aware this is not a black and white scenario)
The point is where do you draw the line? People that murder children etc.. could all be said to be mentally ill. (Certainly not normal) but is that enough to divorce them from responsibility and if not, why not?
People are either responsible for their actions regardless of how handicapped, psychopathic or criminally insane they are OR they are not. If not then l assert that neither is anyone, because ultimately we are then simply products of our environment and therefore completely unable to self-determine, and can only remain blameless for any of our actions.
What l am saying is that you either decide to kill all that contavene social norms to the point of being 'evil' as society finds them, (regardless of how mad, poor, oppressed, stupid, young or spastic they are) OR you just let everyone go because you have determined that people are simply not responsible for their own actions.
I think this whole problem can be circumvented by having parental licencing in the first place, to stop people bringing up mashed up versions of their own unique blend of spite and bile.
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff