|
By:
Your only 2 posts ... h'mmm
|
|
By:
INCREDIBLE
|
|
By:
bix 09 Dec 16:55
As I said above. Instant death penalty for any crime.Therefore no re-offenders and no need for prisons. With the money saved on prisons triple police force and then zero tolerance. I dont think we would be reading about quite so many cases of thugs kicking defenceless people to death. You're obviously a well educated plank of wood . |
|
By:
Now both go drown in your own p1ss
|
|
By:
Mc Moonbeam
I am not suggesting that the death penalty for any crime is morally correct or justifiable, but it would protect the public from the criminals which the current methods clearly do not. Note I am not talking retribution or punishment but merely how to protect the rest of the population. To solve a problem it is sometimes useful to look at the two extremes of the issue and here these are 1. Do nothing and completely ignore the crimes and let the offenders do whatever they wish or 2. The death penalty for all crimes Obviously some middle ground is called for but when deciding which road to take unfortunately option 2 completely solves the problem but option 1 does not. You are also welcome to give us your proposed solutions to what is a massive problem. |
|
By:
A good read this thread, apart form the**ging matches. I don't feel that 20 odd years is enough for these scuum, they'll be out by the time they're 40, that poor man and all his friends / family have had their lives ruined. I wouldn't lose any sleep if I read tomorrow tyhat these cuunts were to be executed, in fact I'd vote for any party which would be in favour of the death penalty. These people don't deserve to live, in relative comfort with their 3 meals a day and creature comforts.
|
|
By:
I am not suggesting that the death penalty for any crime is morally correct or justifiable, but it would protect the public from the criminals which the current methods clearly do not. It wouldnt protect the polulace anymore or less than life imprisonment , surely? Evidence from America demonstrates very clearly that States with the Death Penalty actually have a higher murder rate than those that don`t : http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates#stateswithvwithout Additionally the cost of a Capital punishment case varies between $1 and $7 million , the total cost of a case resulting in life imprisonment $500, 000 . |
|
By:
but is that because of appeals, if you had no appeal then would the cost be a lot less ?
|
|
By:
Edward ,the only conclusion I can draw from your statements is that the death penalty increases the murder rate.
|
|
By:
Unfortunately appeals are intrinsic to the judicial system in most civilised countries .
|
|
By:
Evidence would suggest that to be the case Epicurean .
|
|
By:
Amazing statement to suggest no would be murderers will be deterred by the thought of losing their own life shortly after .Self preservation is the strongest instinct we are all born with .
|
|
By:
Epicurean
I`ve no idea why you think that . The majority of murders are committed in the heat of the moment when all rational thought has been suspended . When the red mist comes down life imprisonment or the death sentence is an irrelevance . Besides , the evidence speaks for itself . |
|
By:
I'm thinking of committing a murder .What happens if I get caught ,well I lose my life in afew months O K lets do it. What happens if I get caught 18 years max with 3 meals a day TV cigs etc no won't do it.
|
|
By:
and what percentage are overturned on appeal ?
|
|
By:
wit ham
in the states 2 out of 3 are overturned on appeal |
|
By:
epi
as ive just said , most murders have no premeditation |
|
By:
but is that because they dont appeal against life imprisonment, as they would appeal a death sentence because they could be given the death penalty on review ?
|
|
By:
bix 10 Dec 14:13
To solve a problem it is sometimes useful to look at the two extremes of the issue and here these are 1. Do nothing and completely ignore the crimes and let the offenders do whatever they wish or 2. The death penalty for all crimes Obviously some middle ground is called for but when deciding which road to take unfortunately option 2 completely solves the problem but option 1 does not. --- Option 2 would actually mean we were all sadistic freaks, and obviously would create many more problems than it solves, if you cannot see that then I would suggest your ability to reason is lacking somewhat. The comment about self preservation above is correct for you and I, but we've already established that those who commit the worst atrocities are fundamentally lacking similar ethics. Surely if this was right, every country with capital punishment would have empty death rows? Crime was FAR worse in this country when we had a death penalty. That will automatically sound strange, as everyone loves to hark back to the good old days, but Victorian London, when prisons and punishment were similar to what is being called for here, was a much more violent place. When you brutalise and demean humans, they take to the role, it exacerbates the problem. Our compassion and ability to pass good moral judgement is supposedly how we are different from the worst criminals. I can hear the right-wingers seething, do not get me wrong, I don't think they should be treated with kindness and kid gloves - but we want so badly to ostracise criminals, make out they are 'monsters' ie, not human, not like us; sadly some of the 'suggestions' in this thread show we are closer than we think. |
|
By:
Not saying all but many for sure .
|
|
By:
we want so badly to ostracise criminals, make out they are 'monsters' ie, not human, not like us;
Monsters sounds like a very good description of the 9 young persons arrested in Birmingham for kicking a man to death who refused to give them a cigarette. |
|
By:
Put 100 Burglars on a non custodial scheme for 6 months and maybe 35 of them will be reformed , but the other 65 will carry on burgling, probably robbing hundreds of houses during that period.
you have a link ? Hardly necessary as you admit yourself that Criminals in jail do not commit burglaries , so in this scenario you have hundreds of crimes if they are all given non custodial sentences during the 6 months and 0 if they all go to jail Put them all in jail and they will commit 0 burglaries in 6 months . And who is to say that the those 'reformed' were actually just relieved to have avoided jail , and thankful to have another chance? So are you saying that a non custodial sentence might actually work ? Only that the prospect of going to jail - brought home to them by narrowly avoiding it might shock some into 'going straight' , but if prison is not a realistic prospect for a 1st or 2nd offence then those that would be dettered by prison will have nothing to fear. Another point is that those that go to prison are usually going there for their 6th or 7th crime rather than their 1st (the first few having been 'punished' by precisely the sort of schemes lauded by the left) . So prison mostly only used for those for whom rehabilitation has been tried and failed. you have a link ? Can't be bothered right now but could easily find plenty: examples of people senteced for very serious crimes whose records have been read out in court at sentencing , and those records often consist of years of relentless muggings, violence and robberies without their ever having spent much time in jail. |
|
By:
This threads longer than the jail sentence.
Should lock them up and throw away the key. |
|
By:
Leave punishment and retribution out of it.
While a criminal is locked up the public are protected. This is the important factor. The public must be protected With the present lenient attitude they are not. |