Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Bloggo Aug 11 2009, 07:59 AM

Morning Gang.
I want to raise the issue of Capital Punishment just onec more.

Have any of you read the harrowing story of baby Peter in the papers today?
If so you will be as sickened as me about the evil people who inflicted this terror on a defencless child. Not only that but their horrendous back-cataloge of despicable crimes like the rape of a two year old.
Surely you all must agree that there are circumstances when the death penalty should be imposed to protect society from these animals.
I am totally sicked by what I have read and a amazed how low society is falling to have allowed all this to take place.

Posted by: Iommi Aug 11 2009, 08:04 AM

I suspect you will get a similar reply and doubt this incident will change opinion. For me, I find it disturbing that people can go about their lives for so long before something happens, or is done about them. Sure, I think these people should be appropriately dealt with, but I would imagine there are a lot of people looking in their hands at the moment as well. Another regrettable feature of this wickedness, its that it can adversely affect 'innocent' families also. We can only hope that systems are changed to prevent this sort of thing happening again, but I doubt it.

Posted by: Andrea Aug 11 2009, 08:09 AM

I for one think it's disgusting that the most they will serve is 12 years, then once they get released, they will be given different identities to allow them to get on with their lives. Not only did they commit this terrible crime, but they had a history of serious crimes in the past. They should have been given life without parole, since we don't have the death penalty over here. 'nuff said.

Posted by: Sarah Aug 11 2009, 08:29 AM

These people are basically so evil, that I can see no hope of them ever being safe to be allowed to live free again.

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 11 2009, 08:33 AM

Exactly. Keep them locked up until they are no longer a danger to society.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Aug 11 2009, 08:34 AM

But they will be free after some namby pamby liberalist lobby group explains it was 'circumstances' and they have 'changed'.

I personally think they should have their backs broken or spinal cords cut so they never walk again.

Posted by: Bloggo Aug 11 2009, 08:42 AM

Is that the extent of your outrage on this subject?
I think it a little "luke warm" but you are entitled to your view.
Unless people become more insistant that the penalties for crimes are ramped up and spend less time hoping they do then you're right, things won't change.

Posted by: Bloggo Aug 11 2009, 08:44 AM

Hopefully they will benefit from some counciling from their fellow inmates.
I beleive that some of them have pretty strong views on child killers and molesters.
Lets hope so!!

Posted by: Bloggo Aug 11 2009, 08:44 AM

Hopefully they will benefit from some counciling from their fellow inmates.
I beleive that some of them have pretty strong views on child killers and molesters.
Lets hope so!!

Posted by: GMR Aug 11 2009, 09:56 AM

The trouble is they won't serve 12 years; they'll be out in less time so that they can abuse other children.

Posted by: Bill1 Aug 11 2009, 11:08 AM

If I had my way they wouldn't be locked up at all.

Just chain them to a post in a public place with a placard indentifying them and let things occur as they most surely would, only very slowly.

I know this may seem barbaric but to call these people animals would be unjust to animals.

Every time I see my little lad smile and then poor Peter's face on TV or the paper attempting to do the same I just cant bear it.

May the never know peace and suffer for eternity!

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Aug 11 2009, 11:10 AM

If you did it in Newbury Town centre on a Friday or Staurday night at least you would know the Police would not be bothering you!!!!

Posted by: JeffG Aug 11 2009, 11:36 AM

More police bashing?

Posted by: Bill1 Aug 11 2009, 11:36 AM

Irrelevant TD&H and not a subject to be flippant about either I'm afraid.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Aug 11 2009, 12:39 PM

I was not being 'flippant'. Strewth give me strength.

Posted by: Bill1 Aug 11 2009, 01:27 PM

That is how it came accross.

Posted by: lordtup Aug 11 2009, 02:21 PM

One can not help but see the knee jerk reaction applied by the well meaning, but somewhat naive contributors.
If capital punishment was still on the statute books it wouldn't have prevented this, or any other recent atrocity , occurring. What it would have done is appeased the conscience of the masses so they could sleep at night in the belief that justice has been served.
It is a strange sort of society that issues licences to breed other species but allows anyone with the necessary "bits" to not only bring life into this world , but a free hand to remove it ,before action is taken.
My views may be simplistic , but the judicial system won't prevent these tragedies , that is down to each individual.

Posted by: Bloggo Aug 11 2009, 02:36 PM

Posted by: Andrea Aug 11 2009, 03:03 PM

I've just seen the Sky News report on these people. The mother, when released, will get a stylist and a personal trainer! I can't believe it! And WE'RE paying for this!

And she'll still be young enough to have more children too...

Posted by: Instigator Aug 11 2009, 03:07 PM

I'm with Bloggo on this,

To be honest, I know some people think that the death penalty may not prevent some of these things from happening, (I actually think it would, as this may be the only thing that gets through some of those twisted minds) but it would stop them from being released in a few years with new identities to live a free life, which none of them deserve.

Posted by: Iommi Aug 11 2009, 03:15 PM

While lordtup's comment did appear to be insensitive, I can't see how you can legitimately accuse him of not caring for the innocent child. I think there is some truth in what he says, albeit difficult to digest at this point in time.

Posted by: Strafin Aug 11 2009, 03:24 PM

Agreed 100% Good post.

Posted by: Bloggo Aug 11 2009, 03:24 PM

It's simple, he shows no empathy for the child. He is just exercising his ego.

Posted by: JeffG Aug 11 2009, 03:39 PM

Actually, it was hard to tell which was Bloggo and which was quote.

(Sheesh! Caught out by page 2-itis again.)

Posted by: Iommi Aug 11 2009, 03:39 PM

I feel he is demonstrating a rational thought, albeit, one that makes people feel uncomfortable. I'm sure lordtup, feels every sympathy for the deceased child. No right minded person wouldn't. Indeed, he showed this by his comment regards people who perhaps shouldn't, being able to bring life into this world, being let by society destroy life.

Posted by: Bill1 Aug 11 2009, 03:40 PM

I think you'll find I am too, if you read back a bit further on this thread.

Posted by: GMR Aug 11 2009, 03:43 PM

People say that the death penalty isn’t a deterrent... so! The death penalty is for those that have taken away somebody else’s life or abused children... sod a deterrent!

Posted by: Iommi Aug 11 2009, 03:47 PM

Posted by: Newbury Expat Aug 11 2009, 04:39 PM

Can't believe that these 'people' will be free to walk the streets again putting our children at risk. As abusers of children will they have to report to the police once a week? Do their names go on a register for people to look up (ie like Megan's Law here where all registered child abusers are put on a list and you can google an area and see if these 'people' live near you)?

The system fails us if these 'people' are allowed to secretly re-integrate with society. They should be locked up for the rest of their unnatural lives. It's not the absence of a death penalty that's the problem, it's the absence of common sense sentencing.

Point to consider though, if the same justice system that gives away such light sentences will also be responsible for imposing capital punishment should it ever be in place, do we have any doubts they would send many people to their deaths who are not guilty of the crimes they are convicted of?

To the advocates of capital punishment what would be a 'fair' balance? 10 child killers put to death vs 1 innocent man? Would this be a trade-off you could live with? If not what number? Because that second number is important and would be quite real.

Posted by: Iommi Aug 11 2009, 04:42 PM

I would prefer a workable deterrent, if I had the choice.

Posted by: Bloggo Aug 11 2009, 04:46 PM

Iommi.
I know how to quote the whole text but how do you quote selected parts of it?
Thanks

Posted by: Strafin Aug 11 2009, 04:51 PM

Quote as usual, but then just edit the text and delete the bit's you don't want.

Posted by: Iommi Aug 11 2009, 04:52 PM

Yes?



I'll PM you.

The code for the above looks like this, but swap < with [ and > with ].

<quote name='Bloggo' post='5222' date='Aug 11 2009, 05:46 PM'>Iommi.</quote>

Yes?

<quote name='Bloggo' post='5222' date='Aug 11 2009, 05:46 PM'>I know how to quote the whole text but how do you quote selected parts of it? Thanks</quote>

I'll PM you.

Posted by: GMR Aug 11 2009, 06:26 PM

Oh, I agree... if you could get one, but I don't think it is possible... human nature being what it is.

Posted by: Instigator Aug 12 2009, 07:44 AM

Hi Bill,

I had read your comment earlier, and as much as I'm sure it upsets some people, I also agree with the statement you made. these people should lose any so called human rights once they stop acting human.

Posted by: Bloggo Aug 12 2009, 08:11 AM

[quote name='Newbury Expat' date='Aug 11 2009, 05:39 PM' post='5218']

Point to consider though, if the same justice system that gives away such light sentences will also be responsible for imposing capital punishment should it ever be in place, do we have any doubts they would send many people to their deaths who are not guilty of the crimes they are convicted of?

You make a good and important point. Sadly there will be miscarriages of justice and it is inevitable that someone who later to be found innocent will be hung but I think this risk will be offset by the volume of innocent people who will be protected buy the threat that the death penalty brings with it.

To the advocates of capital punishment what would be a 'fair' balance? 10 child killers put to death vs 1 innocent man? Would this be a trade-off you could live with? If not what number? Because that second number is important and would be quite real.

I don't think you can quantify this figure as there is no fair balance. Innocent people being killed is a disaster but I can't see analternative that is any fairer.

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 12 2009, 11:26 AM

would you still think it fair if it was a member of your family sent to the gallows wrongly? Would you shrug your sholuders & say, well, at least the other nine who went were gulity?

Posted by: GMR Aug 12 2009, 11:37 AM

Would you be happy if a member of your family was murdered – say a child - and the culprit (the murderer/ abuser) after a limited time – probably because of good behaviour – was set free, while that family member will never have the privilege of seeing life again? Is that justice? One would have thought that the murderer got the better deal out of it, while the ones left behind (the family of the murdered child) continue their life sentence of suffering. Is that fairness?

"Would you shrug your shoulders & say, well, at least the" murderer got his life back at the end of the day... I am satisfied.. would you say that?

Posted by: Iommi Aug 12 2009, 11:43 AM

I think GMR and dannyboy both have a valid point and this is why this is such a difficult question, a moral maze if you like.

At the end of the day, a society that lets sociopaths out early is not likely to be one that will endorse the death penalty. So the argument is rather pointless in this regard.

Moving back on topic somewhat, Steve Barker wasn't convicted of murder, it is unlikely, therefore, he would have hung for this offence alone.

Posted by: JeffG Aug 12 2009, 12:02 PM

Bloggo - I tried to send you a PM but as far as I can see it didn't work (stupid system!). Please let me know if you got it.

Posted by: Andy1 Aug 12 2009, 12:04 PM

Maybe we should have Death Row as they do in some parts of the U.S. Serve a prison sentense then get the dealth penalty.

The other problem is that the abused children of today, obviously the ones who survive their childhood, are they not more likely to growup and becomes abusers. So what becomes of them ?

Posted by: GMR Aug 12 2009, 12:21 PM

I must add that I would much prefer a life sentence being a life sentence with hard labour thrown in. I think that would be better justice than the death penalty. They can then spend the rest of their life reflecting on what they’ve done.

The reason I say the death penalty now because the justice they get is not really justice. Life doesn’t always mean life and when they are in a cell they get all the comforts of home and more. The only thing they actually lose is not being able to walk outside their front door; i.e. outside the prison.


As for Andy1’s comments about the abused becoming abusers; we’ve all got hard luck stories; paedophiles being born that way, serial killers can’t help it. But we control our compulsions. A crime is a crime is a crime; in other words if they commit a crime they must suffer the consequences.

As for being on Death Row for years and years waiting and hoping; I agree that is wrong. Kill them, give them life or absolve them.

Posted by: Iommi Aug 12 2009, 12:30 PM

I think it's more than a hard luck story. At least a 1/3 of abused children turn into abusers. It would be good, therefore, to be able to break that cycle. In my view, people who are responsible for the most heinous of crimes are mentally ill.

Posted by: Bloggo Aug 12 2009, 01:11 PM

Yes so do I and it is a situation that I would hope never to find myself in


Sad but true


No but he should have.

Iommi, JeffG thanks for you help. Pretty isn't it?

Posted by: GMR Aug 12 2009, 01:16 PM

I can’t fault your comments about ‘breaking the cycle’. My point was – about using the words ‘hard luck story’ – that once they’ve stepped over the line then they will have to be treated as any other criminal. But I do accept that we must help where we can beforehand.

As for ‘mentally ill’; that is how Joe public sees such people, but that facts remain that most of them are as normal as you and I.

Posted by: Andy1 Aug 12 2009, 02:56 PM

As a sane person your comment goes without saying. I think however if your hardluck story was that you were abused daily from a very young age, needn't go into details, then it would be a different thing. However without going through the experience I wouldn't know.

Posted by: Iommi Aug 12 2009, 03:04 PM

What's normal?

I don't like to swat a wasp, let alone anything else. I would also regard myself as normal and I can't begin to think about harming anyone, other than maybe, in self defence.

Posted by: Chesapeake Aug 12 2009, 03:52 PM

I don't agree with you I'm afraid GMR.

Most of them are not as normal as you and I (unless you have something to tell us that is). I have certainly not nor have I ever been in the state of mind that meant that I felt that I could abuse an animal, a human being or the law. People who carry out such heinous crimes always have a 'cause' of some kind behind the crime that they committed. A man or child of sane mind does not abuse a child even though it cries in pain. A man or child does not mutilate a kitten and then throw it on a bonfire even though it mews in pain. People who commit awful, sadistic crimes have awful stories behind their actions be it prolonged, subtle, mental abuse or the more obvious physical abuse. People damage children and children grow up damaged. Some cope but others don't.

Posted by: GMR Aug 12 2009, 04:17 PM

Hi my friend,

There is no problem with you disagreeing... there is if you agree though; you kill off the topic straight way

It is not just my views that they are normal but professionals and psychiatrists views. It is a subject that always has interested me and I’ve read many books on the subject from a psychological angle. Of course that doesn't apply to everybody and I agree that there are damaged children out there; I didn't say it applies to everybody.

Carry on disagreeing... that is what I pay you for

Glenn

Posted by: Chesapeake Aug 12 2009, 04:23 PM

Oh Glen, you are so much fun.

I too am very interested in Psychology and have 'dabbled' in it more than a little. Fascinating and never ending stuff.

We'll cross again soon I am sure. That's not a threat by the way.

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 12 2009, 05:55 PM

you miss the point yet again.

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 12 2009, 05:57 PM

None of them were. Which is why they'll be out relatively quickly. If it had been one person in the house at the time of death, they'd be in for a lot longer.

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 12 2009, 06:00 PM

they are victims too. Society needs a better way of dealing with such children - sending them off to childrens homes etc does not really give them what every childs needs - love.

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 12 2009, 06:06 PM

Fred West, Peter Sutcliffe, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, Dennis Nielsen - as normal as you or I - speak for yourself!!!

Posted by: GMR Aug 12 2009, 06:39 PM

When that happens it will be a pleasure

Posted by: GMR Aug 12 2009, 06:46 PM

Dear Dannyboy, I didn’t miss the point but decided to answer it in my own way. But if you like I will answer your direct question. No I wouldn’t like it if it was one of my family, however, if the death penalty did come back today then the proof would have to be 100%. People like the Moor’s murderers, Dahmer, Gacy etc there was no doubt that they did murder; case closed.

Are you happy with that answer?


Now I've done the honour and answered your question would you return that honour and answer my question? Thank you.

Posted by: GMR Aug 12 2009, 06:56 PM

Dannyboy... it is always a pleasure to do business with you (it is pity there wasn’t more like you, and I mean that as compliment... not sarcasm).

To your question; I am neither a professional doctor, psychologist nor psychiatrist, however, what I am is keen amateur. These professionals I have mentioned have stated that not all serial killers are mad. These names you have mentioned were not classified by the courts or the clinical and forensic psychiatrists who judged them. You are also not a professional body in the lines I have mentioned either; because of that you and I must bow to their professionalism, experience and judgement. However, and saying all that and going with everything I’ve read on the subject matter I concur with their professional judgement.

Posted by: Iommi Aug 12 2009, 07:35 PM

I think, GMR, your choice of 'normal' is questionable. Being a sociopath, although a trait found in humans, I don't think is 'normal', especially in the developed world. Also, being mentally ill, doesn't necessarily mean being mad either.

Although this is merely based on a groundless opinion, I wouldn't trust a psychologist as far as I could throw one. I think many of them are fullash*te.

Posted by: GMR Aug 12 2009, 08:23 PM

OK, so where does that leave us? You are right and they are wrong?

A sociopath under British law: "In the United Kingdom, "Psychopathic Disorder" is legally defined in the Mental Health Act (UK) as, "a persistent disorder or disability of mind (whether or not including significant impairment of intelligence) which results in abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct on the part of the person concerned."

Most serial killers - not all - where not classified as such. They stood trial as normal and rational human beings. Same in America.

I agree that there is a question mark over normal.... what is normal to some, is abnormal to others; but I was talking about legal definition.

Posted by: Iommi Aug 12 2009, 08:58 PM

Come on GMR, putting words in one's mouth is a regrettable feature of some of your less than successful arguments. I made it abundantly clear that mine was just an unqualified opinion. My reply was in response to your detailing how you come to your conclusion that mass murders are 'normal' and this is backed up by books you have read from psychologists and the like.

I am sure that for every psychologist that says 'it is like this', there will be one that says 'it is like that'.


To be honest, I'm not sure what this passage is posted for, so I can't comment.


And this might be where the problem with care in the community up to the death penalty, starts to fail. A failure to recognise these issues. If anything the Wiki passage starts to convince me more that perhaps the death penalty isn't right, in some, if not many cases.

I understand that it is debatable, but is felt that psychopathy leans towards the hereditary whereas sociopathy tends towards the environmental.


As you argue sometimes yourself, as we come to understand more, as we develop, we should be seeking better solutions to man's ills, solutions that reflect better our understanding of what makes us tick and what can make us better humans.

Posted by: GMR Aug 12 2009, 09:15 PM

Ok, fair point. However, I don’t believe that we can use the word mad to define all anomalies within the human species. Mad seems a convenient word to use for some.



Now you’ve got me thinking; I think in response to your use of the word ‘sociopath.’



Again fair point, however, if it is a clear cut case then shouldn’t we lean towards one of them?



According to the dictionary they are both the same words: “Psychopathy is a psychological construct that describes chronic immoral and antisocial behavior. The term is often used interchangeably with sociopathy.”



I won’t argue with that... but in some cases we are not seeking better solutions. Just taking a step backwards.

Posted by: Iommi Aug 12 2009, 09:27 PM

This is just it, I don't think this subject is clear cut. People capable of heinous crimes are abnormal in my unqualified view and the quicker we can recognise this the quicker we might be able to effect change for the good. Perhaps one day, we won't want to, or need to, impulsively fall back on what is the savage.


I'm not sure what you point is here, as my post was intended as just a bit of trivia, but my source was the same source you used to support your earlier argument with regards UK legal definition of a mental disorder.

Posted by: GMR Aug 12 2009, 09:48 PM

I find it a very interesting subject. I also think the brain still needs charting.

Also; you said if we can “recognise this the quicker we might be able to effect change for the good.” That is “heinous” and “abnormal”. However, we can look at this argument in another way; the sooner we recognise that some of those “people” are “normal” the better we can deal with it. Because a lot of them come from a normal existence/ life style. They continue to act normal after they are caught and are regarded as normal by the authorities. I am not saying your paradigm was wrong, or what I said to counter what you said was actually right. Just throwing suggestions around.



OK, sorry, probably over read it. It is late after all (that is my excuse for tonight)

Posted by: Iommi Aug 12 2009, 10:19 PM

That's fair comment. It is just that when something as hideous as the baby P case happens, it is too easy to refer to type and think, 'hang the b*stards'. For me though, this is just an unhelpful thought process. Of course, just like many others, I feel the 'gardians', who are the people responsible for this, don't deserver to live. Yet, when I hear of things like this, my first thoughts aren't, 'hang the b*stards'. It is more than likely, 'how can we stop this sort of thing happening'.

Like in other arguments, I don't believe there is a totally right or wrong argument; often it just comes down to conscience.

Posted by: GMR Aug 12 2009, 10:26 PM

Here lies the dilemma “how can we stop the problem”. The trouble is while everybody is thinking about it – and they’ve been doing it for centuries – people are suffering and in the process and the real criminals – hard cases – are getting soft sentences. I only suggest hanging as it is the only strict option left in a society that has gone barmy. If we actually meant life and put them away with hard labour there would be no need to talk about hanging the “********”.

Posted by: Iommi Aug 12 2009, 10:37 PM

I don't think there is a way to stop it, only reduce it. The death penalty wouldn't stop murder, only reduce it somewhat. With the DP, there are too many good arguments either side of it that makes it a weak choice. There will always be a problem with solutions that have powerful arguments that go either way. We need solutions that lean heavily in one direction or the other. Perhaps a compromise would be natural life sentences, with an option for voluntary euthanasia for the duration of the sentence. Even then, that doesn't 'cure' the miscarriage of justice problem.

Posted by: GMR Aug 12 2009, 10:56 PM

I think the idea we stop murder or any crime is a red herring. I don’t think it will ever happen in the next thousand or so years. So we move on to punishment; I suggest hanging because of the soft options that are available at the moment are insulting to the people who have died or have been abused at the hands of such people. With human rights dictating how one treats such criminals maybe a third option should be thrown in the ring of debate; kangaroo courts and vigilantes ministering justice. As the government no longer has an ear to the people then maybe the people themselves should decide? Just a thought and worth a debate.

Posted by: Iommi Aug 12 2009, 11:10 PM

No, that's a backward step and would more than likely make everything worse. This is stuff of the taliban.

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 12 2009, 11:35 PM

My point is , that yes, I'd like to see child killers, serial rapists, mass murderers locked up for as long as is required for them to be no longer a threat to society. I would not want to see them killed. For, no matter whaqt the evidence, there is always the chance of error. As a member of society I would not want an innocent death upon my shoulders.

Posted by: GMR Aug 12 2009, 11:55 PM

Again I am not arguing with you... but it doesn't hurt to throw a few ferrets about occasionally

Posted by: GMR Aug 12 2009, 11:56 PM

Nor would I.... at the same time I don't think the justice system is adequate where such people are concerned.

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 13 2009, 12:23 AM

yeah, but the death penalty is just as 'inadequte'.

Sorry Mrs GMR, we fought he was bang to rights when we strung 'im up. How were we to know that he was just a by standa'?

Posted by: Sarah Aug 13 2009, 08:26 AM

Every abused child has the potential to grow up and become an abuser, although in fact a lot do not. To most people, the mere thought of inflicting unnecessary pain on another human being or animal would fill them with horror. I suspect that a child that suffered years of abuse and ill treatment, could eventually start to accept it as the norm, and become immune to the natural aversion to violence.

I wonder what sort of childhood these three abusers had, were they also abused and neglected?.

It’s so easy to feel pity for the child today, and a few years down the line, to be angry when that child turns into a cruel and sadistic adult.

Surely the answer would to improve Social Services and nip these cases in the bud, also a programme of compulsory birth control for offenders might be a good idea. A bit drastic I know, and probably an infringement of their Human Rights, but far better than letting more children be born into a life of misery.

Posted by: Bloggo Aug 13 2009, 09:04 AM

I personally don't care how they were dragged up. I think that they should be hung for what they did.


Hanging would be my favoured form of birth control.

Posted by: Sarah Aug 13 2009, 07:18 PM

Ok, instead of directing our anger at the Government for underfunding the Social Services, leaving Social Workers with an impossible workload, and basically allowing little mites like Baby P to slip through the net, let's get up a petition to bring back hanging.

I'm sure that will solve the problem.

Posted by: GMR Aug 13 2009, 07:41 PM

Do you want me to get a petition set up?

By the way; all governments - not just labour - have underfunded the social services.

Even though underfunded they could still have prevented that child being abused; their independent report said so.

Posted by: Andy1 Aug 14 2009, 12:02 PM

I to think these people were evil, however if Baby P had survived and gone un-noticed would you say the same of him because he would not know any different

Posted by: Bloggo Aug 17 2009, 10:10 AM

Sorry Andy, I'm not sure that I understand your question?

Posted by: Iommi Aug 17 2009, 10:24 AM

I think he was saying, what if Baby P had survived the abuse, only for him to become an abuser himself. Would it be right not to consider how he become one and hung him regardless.

Posted by: Bloggo Aug 17 2009, 10:31 AM

No, I'm clear on this. There aren't any circumstances where someone can deliberatley and coldly take anothers life and be allowed to get away with it.
Without this deterent you just perpetuate the problem.

Posted by: Iommi Aug 17 2009, 10:33 AM

I don't think anyone is saying one should 'get away' with anything.

Posted by: Bloggo Aug 17 2009, 10:48 AM

I think you are deliberatley missing my point.
Let me make myself clear.
If you kill anther person in cold blood outside of a war environment then you should expect to be hung as a consequence of that action.

Posted by: Iommi Aug 17 2009, 12:00 PM

I'm not deliberately missing anything, I just simply disagree with your view.

Posted by: Bloggo Aug 17 2009, 12:29 PM

You have every entilement not to agree with my view and I respect that.
I just think that maybe you are a little unsure of what my view is, so perhaps you might want to look at my posts again.

Posted by: Iommi Aug 17 2009, 12:39 PM

The problem I have is that there are powerful arguments for and against capitol punishment. I just have a basic problem with the 'murder is wrong, so we are going to kill you' principle.

Posted by: Bloggo Aug 17 2009, 12:54 PM

OK Iommi, shall we agree to differ on this one as I have no such reservations?

Posted by: GMR Aug 17 2009, 01:42 PM

Not if they put safeguards in they won’t get it wrong. The trouble is we look back at the old model and then point to its failings. That doesn’t have to be the case. We know who certain murderers are and those that we are not sure about gets life imprisonment.

Posted by: Familytreeingforever Aug 17 2009, 01:54 PM

It is one of those debates which no one will ever agree on. Another thought is though, what is worst to spend the rest of your life in jail thinking about what you did to those people, or be killed, which just means you never have to think about it?

It is absolutely awful what has happened with Baby P. This is the third case now which has shocked us, isn't it? Marie, then Victoria, now baby P. It is awful that they are going to give his murderers' new identities, they should be made to face what they have done.

It was awful also to hear what one of his murderer's did to their own grandmother, locking her in a wardrobe because she wouldn't write him into her will. Then he never got punished because she died in the middle of the case!!!

It sad also though that a case like this, and all social workers are tarred with being awful. Social workers do a lot of good, but this is never going to get publicised, as isn't interesting reading.

Posted by: Iommi Aug 17 2009, 02:26 PM

That's just it, I can't see that safeguards can work, or be determined.


The thing is, they are not convicted murderers. They wouldn't necessarily be hung for their crime.

Posted by: J C Aug 17 2009, 02:31 PM

Isn't the boyfriend serving more years for the rape of the 2 year old girl than the conviction of causing or allowing the death of baby Peter?

Posted by: Bloggo Aug 17 2009, 02:38 PM

No, but they should have been convicted of murder and they should have been hung.
They know and we know the extent of their perversion and corruption and they deserve the same mercy as they have shown the innocent children that have been unfortunate enough to live in their world.

Posted by: Bloggo Aug 17 2009, 02:40 PM

He locked her in a case as well, the b*****d

Posted by: Familytreeingforever Aug 17 2009, 02:50 PM

Probably shouldn't laugh! But that was funny! I will have to watch how I write things in future!

Posted by: GMR Aug 17 2009, 03:02 PM

The good news is that the abusers of baby P will be out of jail soon to afflict abuse on another innocent. Aren’t we glad we haven’t got the death penalty? If we did there would be no second chance and a child’s life would be spared. But that is the consequences of living in a civilised society. Civilised for the innocent, but not for the savage.

Posted by: Iommi Aug 17 2009, 03:12 PM

Being for or against the DP is besides the point. I doubt anyone against the DP would support what will happen to these people either. Being against the DP doesn't mean people support 'soft' sentencing. You are spinning the argument.

I'll also be frank and I don't mean to be rude, but it is precisely because of people like yourself and the apparent 'hunger', or eagerness, for vengeance (capitol punishment), that helps to persuade me that the DP might be wrong.

Posted by: Bloggo Aug 17 2009, 03:23 PM

I don't think the argument is being spun. Anything less than the DP is a soft sentence in this case.

Actually it is a little rude since you don't know Glenn.

Posted by: GMR Aug 17 2009, 03:46 PM

The only reason I support the death penalty is because I don’t fancy putting those animals in an environment that isn’t actually a real punishment. And if you had read my other posts you would know that I am not hungry for the death penalty, I just want the convicted punished.

Posted by: Rachel Aug 17 2009, 04:55 PM

This is a tricky one that I have considered all of my 197 years. Just when I have made my mind up, I'm left with one last scenario. Here it is.
I'm called up for jury service. I listen to all the evidence as is my duty, and I am convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the crime (whatever it is). Then I am reminded that the penalty is death. Can I, a normal, law abiding citizen, commit this person to death? Can I sanction his or her murder? Can I live with the knowledge that I helped to send some-one's son/daughter/mother/father - whatever- to their grave? But I don't want them to go free to re-offend, but that's the choice, kill or set free.
I know this might seem cowardly, but I sooooo wouldn't want to choose. And I think alot of people would be of the same mind, so how difficult would it then be to get an unbiased jury together, & would offenders go free by default because jurors couldn't sentence some one to death?

Posted by: J C Aug 17 2009, 05:03 PM

I would imagine that you would be excused as a juror before any trial began in that scenario. Also it would be down to the judge to pass sentance whether it be prison or death so you wouldn't know what sentance would be passed should you find them guilty you would only know that it could include the death penalty.

Also if the death penalty was used it wouldn't be murder

Posted by: Rachel Aug 17 2009, 05:30 PM

Despite not actually sentencing mysely or it being not called murder, I know how I think & it would feel like that on my conscience.
My real point is the problem of getting enough unbiased jurys if, & only if other people thought like me. Still, I know I'm abit weird....probably find no-one else thinks the same?!!!!!

Posted by: Sarah Aug 17 2009, 06:01 PM

I totally agree. Just because some of us aren't baying for them to be hanged, doesn't mean that we condone what they did or their light sentences, we just aren't comfortable with sentencing another human being to death.

GMR suggested that safeguards could be put in place, I don't think it's possible to have safeguards that are 100% human error proof.

It's becoming quite common these days to hear cries of 'Hang them', to some people it's become the answer for everything from MP's fiddling expenses to mass murder. Quite sad really.

Posted by: Sarah Aug 17 2009, 06:05 PM

I don't think you're weird at all. Human nature being what it is, there is always a chance of a miscarriage of justice. There can be no real safeguards I'm afraid.

Posted by: GMR Aug 17 2009, 06:22 PM

What you do is what you are doing now. After they've abused somebody give them a couple of years... let them off in half the time so the whole cycle can be repeated.

Posted by: JeffG Aug 17 2009, 06:24 PM

Sorry to be so pedantic, but I've seen it several times now in this thread, and it's getting under my skin . If someone is executed by hanging, they are "hanged". "hung" is used in all other meanings of hang, but not this one.

Posted by: GMR Aug 17 2009, 06:25 PM

If you are 197 by the time you've made your decision and the judge then pronounces death you'd be dead as well. So nothing would be on your conscience. Maybe that is the way forward; allow nearly dead people to be on the jury service.

Posted by: Strafin Aug 17 2009, 06:27 PM

I think that lifers should have a death option. If they go for the injection, it is far cheaper, and it is their choice.

Posted by: GMR Aug 17 2009, 06:27 PM

Exactly.

Posted by: Sarah Aug 17 2009, 06:29 PM

Have I got mine right now?

Posted by: GMR Aug 17 2009, 06:32 PM

If you haven't I am sure he will tell you

Posted by: JeffG Aug 17 2009, 06:33 PM

Yes, I think we can let you out of detention now

Posted by: Iommi Aug 17 2009, 06:34 PM

Yes it is being spun. GMR is suggesting that all those opposed to the death sentence are happy about them being released quickly and protected. That is spin and a rather childish way of a debating. Like others, just because we are not opposed to the DP, doesn't mean we want to see heinous crimes dealt with inappropriately and arguments like GMR and others use, is an attempt to belittle people that feel this way.


I don't think I was being rude, but I do think I was being honest. What I meant to say is that I didn't want it to sound personal. There are others that post as he does but don't spring to mind.

Like I said, because people post points of view like GMR and others, compel me to think that we shouldn't have the DP. That doesn't mean that I don't have the instinct to think, as I do, to hang the swines, but I have to think to myself, is that the best course of action. I have yet to be convinced it is. For me, the DP is medieval.

Posted by: GMR Aug 17 2009, 06:39 PM

I would be against the death penalty if we had proper prison sentence and life meant life.


You also know that a lot of what I say is tongue-in-cheek. You also know that I occasionally play the devils advocate... as you do occasionally.

Posted by: Rachel Aug 17 2009, 09:52 PM

Pardon me for having a point of view; and here was I, thinking I was merely debating a topic?!!!
Actually, it's not me dishing out sentences, letting them off & allowing the cycle of abuse to continue. After all, I'm just a little old lady muttering unimportant babble.

Posted by: Rachel Aug 17 2009, 09:55 PM

Thanks Sarah, you obviously read my comments & could see where I was coming from.

Posted by: Rachel Aug 17 2009, 10:06 PM

Iommi, you rock ! Always clear in your debate, considered in your opinion & fully coherent. Rude? I don't think so.

Posted by: GMR Aug 17 2009, 10:08 PM

Iommi is a lovely girl.... I think it started when he (sorry, she) started dressing up and got totally confused. I suppose when Iommi meets a nice boy s/he won't know which way to turn

Posted by: GMR Aug 17 2009, 10:10 PM

Actually 195 year old lady you mean?

Your point of view is welcome my friend.... I sometimes play the devils advocate; it helps the debate along.

Posted by: Bloggo Aug 18 2009, 07:57 AM

I think you are guilty of the crime that you accuse GMR of when you "belittle" him by call him "childish"

Unfortunately it did sound rude and personal

I may of missed your view of what the solution to mindless brutality and killing is. Perhaps you would let us know.

Posted by: GMR Aug 18 2009, 09:37 AM

Aren't you being a bit of a hypocrite here? It is ok for you to play the devils advocate but not anybody else. The whole point of these forums is to debate and saying something in a certain achieves that goal.... so I presume when you mention 'childish' you are also talking about yourself?

Posted by: Andy1 Aug 18 2009, 03:29 PM

If you played it a bit better maybe it would, so far none of your comments have helped the debate along.

Posted by: Berkshirelad Aug 18 2009, 04:21 PM

BTW, referring back to a post much earlier in the thread, Death Row in the US is not where a sentence is served before execution. It is were those liable for execution are held pending execution whilst they exhaust appelas and pleas for clemency - which can take many years.

Posted by: Iommi Aug 18 2009, 05:35 PM

I didn't call him childish, I said, it is a childish way to debate, they are different meanings. I also explained why, which I think was fair. I don't think GMR's comments that inspired my post were fair as they didn't reflect the opinions of people that he was having a dig at.


I disagree and I have already explained why.


I don't know, I am not equipped to know. I do know that I don't agree with the DP. Brutality meets brutality.

Posted by: GMR Aug 18 2009, 06:41 PM

There are many ways to debate; one of them is not to make it personal. We should attack or scrutinise the words of the writer not focus on the writer himself (or herself).

As I said – and which you refuse to acknowledge my reply – there are many ways of debating; playing the devil’s advocate is one of them; to draw your opponent out. Which you also do. The end game is to debate and by drawing yourself in to the debate making you part of it. You engaged; if you thought it was childish you wouldn’t have engaged, other than to prove you are of the same ilk.



I wasn’t having a dig at anybody, just, as I keep saying, engaging them in a debate. It is you who is making it personal. Concentrate on the words, not the person behind it my friend.

Posted by: Iommi Aug 18 2009, 09:31 PM

And attack the words of the poster is exactly what I did.


I haven't refused to reply, that's not true.


I think you and I have a big difference in our understanding what playing devil's advocate means. I don't usually use language to deliberately 'draw' people out as you put it. I do, however, propose opinion to expand on arguments. I don't deliberately bait for the sake of it.


I hate it when people who distort opinion to further their argument and I still stand by my point that to post in the way you did back then then is a childish way to debate. You might disagree and that is your prerogative, but I would never like to, out of respect for you and others, try and spin or distort words and opionion to further mine. I don't like it being done to me and would hope others would do the same.


I would say the same thing. I am being frank on this and I think it is an important point, I'm sure others who are against the DP feel the same. That is, because people display opinion and post opinion like you (I did say others as well), persuade me that things like the DP might not be the best sanction. That is nothing personal, just the way I feel.

Posted by: GMR Aug 18 2009, 10:03 PM

That is what I like to see my friend.... however, you did bring mine name into it which would suggest otherwise; please don’t think I am complaining, I'm not. At the end of the day it is all about debating.



Admittedly a bit strong; what I should have said was you didn’t reply. However my wording on this one got your feathers ruffled. A bit of semantics here and there never killed anybody.



I suppose there are many ways to skin a cat. At the end of the day if we get a debate out of it then we are in the right direction.



That’s the spirit my friend... come out fighting. I wouldn’t use the word ‘distort’ more of a tickle. As one does to fish to hypnotise it. Then you reel it in and have it for supper. The end results are always the same... and if the fish is a good job well done.



If you had read my other posts – or at least one of them – I did say I would prefer we didn’t have the death penalty; that I would rather see certain criminals pay their due the harsh way with life in prison.

How much do I owe you? You are doing a good job my friend. Don’t let the buggers get you down.

Posted by: Sarah Aug 18 2009, 10:05 PM

I feel the same. While from time to time as in the Baby P case, the idea of the Death Penalty appeals for a brief moment, the rather excitable calls of 'hang them' (plus the style of posting), without consideration of the possible consequences, makes me realise it's the wrong way to go. Visions of the ghouls who loved an execution come to mind, and I realise how barbaric and unsafe it is.

Posted by: GMR Aug 18 2009, 10:10 PM

In a civilised society we shouldn’t have such thoughts... so lucky we are that society. To be honest such atrocities are put into our minds to create stories. We shouldn’t be worrying ourselves with such trivialities but think positively. We’ve got to rise above such suggestions and always remember the highway code of life.

Posted by: Sarah Aug 18 2009, 10:15 PM

I'm sure you must know what you mean, but I'm afraid my mind isn't given to flights of fantasy.

Posted by: GMR Aug 18 2009, 10:26 PM

Of course I know what I mean; trying thinking outside the box and you'll understand exactly what I mean.

Posted by: Iommi Aug 18 2009, 11:04 PM

£20.00 should cover it - cash that is.


Do you know that the DP was abolished once before? Also, public execution was abolished because, I understand, that it was felt it was maintaining a savage instinct in society - reminds me of the stoning in Monty Python's Life of Brian.

Posted by: GMR Aug 18 2009, 11:12 PM

Cyber money of course.

QUOTE

Do you know that the DP was abolished once before? Also, public execution was abolished because, I understand, that it was felt it was maintaining a savage instinct in society - reminds me of the stoning in Monty Python's Life of Brian.

Monty Python’s Life of Brian was a brilliant film and many truths in it as well.

Posted by: Bloggo Aug 19 2009, 08:03 AM

That's a shame as contructive argument and dismissal of a proposition put forward by others, in this case the DP, should be supported by a credible alternative solution.
It is often said that "if you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem"

Posted by: Bloggo Aug 19 2009, 08:38 AM

That's a shame as contructive argument and dismissal of a proposition put forward by others, in this case the DP, should be supported by a credible alternative solution.
It is often said that "if you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem"

Posted by: Sarah Aug 19 2009, 08:47 AM

I disagree, you don't have to have the answer to a problem to know that a suggested solution is the wrong one.

So are you saying that if we see a wrong, and can't come up with a solution, we are not allowed to voice our opinion?.

Posted by: Bloggo Aug 19 2009, 09:01 AM

No, what I am looking for is an opinion that is an alternative solution to the problem to the one I put forward.
It is the easy option to critisize someones proposals and not offer an alternative and this does not add any value to the argument or go anyway to finding a solution that may alter my opinion.

Posted by: Sarah Aug 19 2009, 09:21 AM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the impression I got from Iommi's posts, was that he was against the death penalty but in favour of tougher sentencing and against early release.

I think most of us who are against the DP feel that way.

There is also a case for prevention, as in better Social Service care to nip these cases in the bud, and possibly avoid an abused child turning into an abuser.

I really don't understand the attitude of letting things happen, then as a last resort hanging the perpetrator.

As for the issue of the DP, how exactly are you going to safeguard against a possible miscarriage of justice?.

Posted by: GMR Aug 19 2009, 09:26 AM

Posted by: Bloggo Aug 19 2009, 09:42 AM

Sarah, knifings, shootings and crimes against children are on the increase. Social interventioNs have been tried and they don't work. Unless there is a real deterent the situation will get worse.

As for your last point. Yes, there will be cases where someone who is innocent would be sentenced to the DP. However how many innocent people are now being murdered, including children because we have no DP.

Posted by: Sarah Aug 19 2009, 09:57 AM

And you're trying to tell me that bringing back the DP is going to solve the problem. Well I'm sorry I don't agree,

I hate to be flippant here but I'll ask anyway, if one of your close family were hanged for a crime they didn't commit, would you sit back and say, Oh well, it's the price we have to pay to protect innocent people. I think not.

And yes if one of my family were harmed or possibly killed, I'd want revenge and possibly the DP for the attacker, but it still doesn't make it right.

Posted by: Iommi Aug 19 2009, 10:26 AM

Nice bit of spin I think, but peer review is also an important part of the debating process and this is what I believe we (DP sceptics) are doing. As for a part of the solution, I don't think you have argued a cohesive rationale for bringing back the DP, so I dismiss the idea you have provided a legitimate solution.


I think it does. A proposal is submitted and its merits are judged. It is a part of the debating process, which is on going.


I'm, not sure this is the case.

I have seen documentaries that suggest good social intervention and mentoring actually work well, better than incarceration.


For a deterrent to work, it would have to be draconian and would encroach on the lives of many more than just the perpetrators.


I don't think the DP would work if it were to be as it was. I don't believe it is just the DP that acts as a deterrent. I think the fear of getting caught is just as much, if not a more powerful deterrent for certain types of crime.

With the DP, you will just create new victims. You will get gangs pressurising the very young (who would more than likely be excused capitol punishment) to commit murder by proxy, as well as the vulnerable who be targeted, who would be legible for the DP.

In a society that has selective DP, the true villains would more than likely be better equipped to get away with it.

Another thing, are not the murderer's family, children, parents, etc, victims of a society with the DP?

Posted by: GMR Aug 19 2009, 11:27 AM

If they work well then why aren’t we seeing the affects now? The trouble is intervention only helps a small minority. All types of crimes are on the increase; the trouble is not all of them are reported.








So what are you suggesting? Do nothing?






People talk about a deterrent all the time; if the death penalty was brought back then it would be because the person who is to be hanged took a life; ie a punishment and not just to warn others.




There is no proof of this and if there was then people still must suffer the consequences for their actions. If people take a life then they can’t expect everything to be ok. If one person is deprived of their life by another then why shouldn’t the killers life be deprived for their actions?







Then we must make sure that the don’t. You keep talking about improving on the current situation; making things tougher. Then why can’t we improve things if the death penalty was brought back? Make sure that there are not injustices or gray areas. You keep looking to the past and its failures to say why the death penalty shouldn’t be brought back. We should be looking towards the future, not to the past. Only use the past to improve on our mistakes.


There is the other question; you don’t believe in the Death Penalty. Which is your choice and right. Others do… as we live in a democracy shouldn’t a plebiscite decide? Otherwise what is the point of saying we living in a democracy when we are not even allowed to have a say?




Are you saying the ‘murderers family’ should have a higher priority over the murderers victims?

Posted by: Sarah Aug 19 2009, 11:50 AM

Who's this WE you are talking about? It's easy to sit on a forum and pontificate about what we should do, and come up with a barbaric blanket solution, without regard to the possible drawbacks. It isn't as simple as you make out, and that is why the decisions are made by people, far better qualified and knowledgeable on the subject than us.

You talk about a democracy, but doesn't that allow for those against as well as those for?

Posted by: Berkshirelad Aug 19 2009, 11:53 AM

Can't we just go back to transporting them to Australia?

Posted by: Iommi Aug 19 2009, 12:12 PM

I understand that in some communities where they have these policies, they are working. reoffending rates are much lower with effective probation and mentoring.


I understand that is only a small minority that have a problem with violet crime, which had been in decline over the last 10 years. Even that Nick Ross program's survey showed that violent crime wasn't top of everyone's concerns.


I don't believe that.


When did I say we do nothing?


I have no sympathy with this vulgarity whatsoever.


Simple, because guilt is subjective, so I disagree.


One of which, I feel, was the DP. Your argument cuts both ways.


Because of plebs like you!


Again, where did I say this?

Posted by: Bloggo Aug 19 2009, 01:54 PM

Exactly, we agree about something. Let's have a referendum so that the Country can decide.

Posted by: GMR Aug 19 2009, 02:00 PM

I dispute this.








No, what was on top of peoples concerns was anti-social behaviour, and that is because it affects more people - directly - than murder or child abuse.





I do.







You implied it… if not then you should have spelled out what you meant. That is how I read what you said.








Well you should do, apart from that it will extend this debate







Yes, obviously, but you are in a minority






Of course it does, but I am pointing in one direction






I am presuming here you know the difference between a plebiscite and a pleb and your reply was an attempt at humour; jolly good old bean!!!!!







Again you implied it old bean… you implied it.



At this rate I am going to owe you a lot of money… do I get a discount for engaging you?

Posted by: Sarah Aug 19 2009, 02:23 PM

To have a referendum on such a serious issue, requires that the general public have more than an opinion based on media hype. Knowledge, experience and access to relevant information is a must, things most of us don't have.

Posted by: Bloggo Aug 19 2009, 02:44 PM

You speak for youself! Even if what you say was true, which it isn't, it did not stop the government of the day holding a referendum to take us into the Common Market.
When it suits the Government we are allowed to have an opinion.

Posted by: Berkshirelad Aug 19 2009, 03:29 PM

Only when it agrees with theirs.

HNG is only going to hold a referendum when they are confident of getting the resukt they want - why do you think that there has been no referendum on the Treaty of isbon?

Posted by: Bloggo Aug 19 2009, 03:32 PM

Yep, I agree entirely

Posted by: Sarah Aug 19 2009, 03:39 PM

My post was my opinion of what was required for a referendum on this issue, and what I consider to be common sense, where did I say otherwise?

The Common Market Referendum was a good example of some people not really understanding what they were voting for. As I remember it was not to take us in, but whether we should remain in. A very different question, as we were already committed to a certain extent. I might be wrong of course, it was a long time ago.

Posted by: Iommi Aug 19 2009, 03:46 PM

Perhaps we should have a referendum to block the media and government from publishing one-sided, inflammatory cobblers.

Posted by: Bloggo Aug 19 2009, 03:47 PM

Yes but I'm afraid your assumption that people don't understand the argument is erroneous.
Of couse there are those that haven't a clue about this or anything els for that matter but I think the majority would have a view.

Yes, you have got this wrong.
There was a referendum back in the 70s to take us into the Common Market.
The referendum that you refer to was the one we were promised that would have given us the opportunity to say if we wanted to stay in or get out.
Because the public were likely to take us out the vote was cancelled. Democracy eh!!!

Posted by: Sarah Aug 19 2009, 03:56 PM

So basically you think that holding a view, whether informed or not, gives us the right to decide on life and death situations. Interesting.!!!

I'm sure others will come on and confirm which of us is right, but this backs up my memory of what happened.

The United Kingdom referendum of 1975 was a post-legislative referendum held on 5 June 1975 in the whole of the United Kingdom over whether there was support for it to stay in the European Economic Community, which it had entered in 1973, under the Conservative government of Edward Heath. Labour's manifesto for the 1974 general election included a pledge for a referendum, so after Labour won under Harold Wilson, the referendum was held.

In April 1970, during the 1970 general election Edward Heath said that further European integration would not happen “except with the full-hearted consent of the Parliaments and peoples of the new member countries.”[1] Despite this comment, no referendum was held when UK entered into the Common Market into 1973, by entering into an accession treaty on 22 January 1972 (with Denmark, Ireland, Norway) and passing the European Communities Act 1972 on 16 October 1972. The UK joined what would become the European Union with Denmark and Ireland on 1 January 1973.

Posted by: Sarah Aug 19 2009, 05:10 PM

Many a true word spoken in jest.

Posted by: Iommi Aug 19 2009, 05:15 PM

What would we do without Wikipedia!

United Kingdom European Communities membership referendum, 1975

The electorate were asked to vote yes or no on the question: '"Do you think the UK should stay in the European Community (Common Market)?" Every administrative county in the UK had a majority of "Yes", except the Shetland Islands and Western Isles.

Yes votes
17,378,581 = 67.2%

No votes
8,470,073 = 32.8%

Turnout
64.5%

Posted by: Sarah Aug 19 2009, 06:01 PM

Phew, thank goodness for that, I was starting to think my memory was going.

Posted by: GMR Aug 19 2009, 06:54 PM

Then we should educate them.

Posted by: GMR Aug 19 2009, 06:57 PM

I agree totally. The public should be given both sides of the argument.

Posted by: Bloggo Aug 20 2009, 08:00 AM

I'm with you on that.

Posted by: Rachel Aug 21 2009, 12:18 PM

Any one see the program about the murder of Lesley Molseed? Good job Stefan Kiszko wasn't sent to the gallows, eh?

Posted by: GMR Aug 21 2009, 01:35 PM

First of all I agree (about Kiszko etc). Secondly; people like you bring up the same old argument. Who said that if we had the death penalty again it would be with the same flaws? This is an old trick that is used by anti-death-penalty PC's; force people to look at the past, show the faults etc. For a start who said it would play that way if we brought it back? I wouldn't accept the death penalty brought back under the same old lines. There would have to be safe guards.

Posted by: Sarah Aug 21 2009, 02:37 PM

I think it is a very valid point, and I'd be interested to hear your ideas on safeguards that could be guaranteed 100% fool proof.

Posted by: GMR Aug 21 2009, 02:48 PM

Well we have cases already that we are 100% sure of: Moor's etc. The ones you mentioned where there was doubt and therefore they should be just put into jail.

Posted by: Iommi Aug 21 2009, 02:51 PM

There is always doubt, including sanity. All you would get are cleverer lawyers. I also resent your phrase 'trick'. We use no tricks, we simply refer to the past as a reference. The future will do the same to us.

Posted by: GMR Aug 21 2009, 02:56 PM

Maybe not a trick by you, but by some who like playing semantics.

Posted by: Sarah Aug 21 2009, 02:56 PM

As I thought, you haven't really given the subject much thought.

Posted by: GMR Aug 21 2009, 02:58 PM

I have actually... but if it ever happens it won't be me who decides... or even you.

Posted by: Sarah Aug 21 2009, 03:01 PM

Thank goodness for that, I had the impression that you thought we should.

Posted by: Newbury Expat Aug 21 2009, 03:02 PM

Agreed Sarah, a valid point from Rachel.

It could equally be said that it is a common 'trick' (hate that term but it's been used so I'll go with it) of proponents of the death penalty to say "well that's the old system, of course the new one would be better".

Um, how exactly? The penalty is a consequence of a trial and conviction which, being part of the British justice system is not 100%. Safeguards are never completely safe.

Posted by: GMR Aug 21 2009, 03:03 PM

But that isn't a good enough reason not to do anything.

Posted by: Iommi Aug 21 2009, 03:07 PM

But it is good enough (for me) to not have the DP.

Posted by: Newbury Expat Aug 21 2009, 03:11 PM

The something I would do is life means life. 'Anything' isn't limited to the death penalty but as that was what was being discussed.

Posted by: GMR Aug 21 2009, 03:20 PM

But as we have all different views then shouldn't there be a way to allow the majority to decide? And if you voted against it - believing it was wrong - but the majority said yes and we had it at least your conscience would be clear.

Posted by: GMR Aug 21 2009, 03:21 PM

I agree life should mean life and that life sentence shouldn't be a soft one.

Posted by: Rachel Aug 21 2009, 08:37 PM

Ha ha! I type 21 words, light the touch paper, stand well back & wait for for the fireworks! Now THAT'S wot I call playing Devil's advocate, GMR!!!!!!!!!! But then that's what 'People like me' do I'm sorry, GMR, was too tempting x

Posted by: GMR Aug 21 2009, 08:51 PM

But I agree... and call me Glenn... it is better than saying GMR. There are many ways of playing the Devil's Advocate and your way is just as good as anybody's; but the main point is to see if people bite, as that is the way we judge. Of course such tactics are not everybody's cup of tea and if they don't like your style they usually sulk... but then again if I could please everybody I would be charging myself out to the highest bidder (even better, if I could please User I would be considered a Warlock; i.e. a caster of magical spells)

Live long and prosper my friend

Posted by: JeffG Aug 21 2009, 09:02 PM

Wasn't that John Wellington Wells?

Posted by: Sarah Aug 21 2009, 09:11 PM

That's why he's no good at it, he can't restrict himself to 21 words.

Posted by: GMR Aug 21 2009, 09:20 PM

The sorcerer in the Gilbert & Sullivan’s comic Opera; we are connoisseur my friend... nice to meet a literary mind.