Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: GMR Aug 2 2009, 10:13 PM

As it has been discussed on another topic I thought it would be a good idea to have a poll.

For the most serious crimes should the death penalty be brought back?

Posted by: GMR Aug 2 2009, 10:24 PM

I did do an actual poll but it seems admin has disabled it for whatever reason; probably that sort of democracy on here is a step too far

But the question can be still answered; the choices I gave was "yes," No," or "don't know".

Posted by: Wicca Aug 2 2009, 10:25 PM

I think in some cases the death penalty is the best course of action, but they need to be judged case by case individually and not as a sweeping judgement.

Posted by: GMR Aug 2 2009, 10:25 PM

I agree.

Posted by: Iommi Aug 2 2009, 10:38 PM

No. When unsure I usually say no, unless it's last orders, but I have to ask first, what is the purpose of the death penalty?

Interestingly, I understand that the Death Penalty works best as a deterrent when it is unconditional.

Posted by: Andy Aug 2 2009, 11:20 PM

Yes

Posted by: JeffG Aug 3 2009, 07:33 AM

No.

(I think NWN have a monopoly on polls, on the home page . Try something like "Do you think it will rain tomorrow?" and see if you get away with that.)

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Aug 3 2009, 07:55 AM

Only for the most heinous of crimes where the burden of proof is 100% absolute.

Posted by: Andrea Aug 3 2009, 07:56 AM

Really depends on the situation. I usually believe that serving a life long prison sentence would be worse than the death penalty as death would be the 'easy way out'. But I'm starting to change my mind on that. I do believe a death penalty would be a good deterrant but only serious offenders should be given the death penalty. So yes, I would like to see the death penalty back, but only if loads of factors were in place to determine who receives it (such as the crime and their personality - if it's some sicko that wants to be killed, let them rot in a cell for the rest of their life!)

Posted by: regor Aug 3 2009, 08:36 AM

Emotionally I instinctivly want to vote 'Yes' but logically I know that the answer has to be 'No'

If we had retained the death penaly during the 1970s/80s periods then a lot of Irish people who were subsequently found to have been innocent would have been executed for terrorist offences.

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 3 2009, 09:41 AM

Funny that some of those who are saying yes are those who think the Police, or Courts & Judicial System does not do a good job..............

With no chance of a meaningful pardon killing someone for a crime is a punishment too far.

Posted by: Andrea Aug 3 2009, 09:48 AM

So? I thought the Police, courts, etc weren't doing a good enough job because they weren't strict enough. I don't see what your point is?

Pardon me for being a bit extreme here... but if someone raped and murdered your child, would you be okay with that person living out the rest of their life in prison where they will live a rather cushy prison life?

It's that sort of thing that I would want the death penalty for.

Posted by: GMR Aug 3 2009, 09:52 AM

You mean people like the Moor murderers, child abusers, serial killers etc should have a 'meaningful pardon,' or at least the chance of a 'meaningful pardon'?

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 3 2009, 10:14 AM

Could you ever be sure the Police, Jury, Judge had got it right?

Take the cases of - Steven Downing & Stefan Kisko. Both victims serious miscarriges of justice, both innocent & both having endured over a decade in prison.

And prison is not 'cushy'.

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 3 2009, 10:16 AM

Serial killers end up in secure hospitals. They are mentally ill. You don't kill someone for being ill.

You seem to be assuming that the Courts & Police always get it right, so it would be safe to string 'em up.

Posted by: Andrea Aug 3 2009, 10:22 AM

In comparison to prison in other countries, UK prison life is cushy.

and I would only agree with the death sentence if there was not a single percent of doubt that the person was guilty.

Posted by: Bloggo Aug 3 2009, 10:35 AM

I've just read all of the recent posts and there is a lot of sense being spoken for both sides of the argument.
My view is that the death penalty should be reinstated for serial killers, those that rape and kill, those that kill children, those that kill police.
I know that some innocent people would suffer as a result of this however I believe that there are a huge amount of innocent victims who are killed by other simply because there is no death penalty deterent.
So yes, bring it back.
I am also in favour of Corporal punishment.

Posted by: J C Aug 3 2009, 10:41 AM

Instictively I would answer yes to bring back the death penalty, but I think it's not because it's the right punishment but life sentances never seem to mean life these days so I would be looking towards the death penalty as a more fitting sentance.

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 3 2009, 10:47 AM

Prison life is comparative no? A bit like comparing having a hand chopped off to having a finger chopped off. Both not nice, but one preferable to the other. I'd suggest that having to spend 24/7 with a group of people, many rejected & forgotten by society would not be cushy at all.

Posted by: Andrea Aug 3 2009, 10:54 AM

From everything I've heard, the only thing not cushy about prison is that you're not allowed to leave until your sentence is up. They have a lot of comforts in prison that the average joe in the world can't afford.

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 3 2009, 11:05 AM

next you'll be saying that it is so nice in prison, folk are committing crimes to be let in..............

Posted by: Simon Aug 3 2009, 11:07 AM

I would have to say NO for two reasons

1. I cant see how you can morally ask someone to kill another human being
2. I dont believe the justice system works in this country, lawyers and solicitors are very very good at lying and confusing jury's

I do agree that Prisons are too easy these days (we dont want to effect the prisoners human rights, do we

Also a prisoners hardly ever serve their full sentance, and quite often someone commiting a serious crime, will be out in a few years.

Remember the Jamie Bulger case? They didnt serve life did they.

Posted by: GMR Aug 3 2009, 11:09 AM

I've met a load of people who were inside and they would disagree with you; that it is 'cushy'.

As for Steven Downkng & Stefan Kisko; if the death penalty was available they wouldn't be the type to be executed.

Posted by: Simon Aug 3 2009, 11:10 AM

Dannyboy, do you know anyone who has been to prison?

I know a couple of people who have, and yes I would say that playstations, freeview tv and radio's in your cell, free snooker and pool tables in the req room, organised sports events, free higher learning and what spunds to be really nice food served for you 3 times a day is cushty.

Im sure not all UK prisons are like that, but the ones i have heard about are. I wouldnt say people are committing crimes to get in but it sure isnt deterring them from doing the crime

Posted by: GMR Aug 3 2009, 11:11 AM

You should read my other post because some are. Some find that the amenities are far better inside than out.

Posted by: Bloggo Aug 3 2009, 11:11 AM

Well DB, I think you'll find that this has actually been the case!

Andrea, Ithink you'll find that they don't even have to complete their sentence now as because the prisons are so full the authorities are finding excuses to let them out before time.
It's like the nutters are running the asylum.

Posted by: GMR Aug 3 2009, 11:12 AM

Exacty

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 3 2009, 11:15 AM

One case.

Posted by: GMR Aug 3 2009, 11:16 AM

I agree that you don’t execute people who are mentally ill, but not all serial killers are mentally ill and any psychologist will tell you that.

As for the last sentence; I didn’t say that… and not all of them, anyway.

Posted by: Bloggo Aug 3 2009, 11:16 AM

[quote name='Simon' date='Aug 3 2009, 12:07 PM' post='4398']
I would have to say NO for two reasons

1. I cant see how you can morally ask someone to kill another human being

I would do it and I'm sure I'm not the only one and any way our government is not afraid to send our soldiers out to kill those that threaten our society.
What's the difference?

Posted by: GMR Aug 3 2009, 11:17 AM

In fact I will tell you a lot of cases. The programme on Tuesday night with Nick Ross gave you many examples.

Posted by: Bloggo Aug 3 2009, 11:17 AM

[quote name='Simon' date='Aug 3 2009, 12:07 PM' post='4398']
I would have to say NO for two reasons

1. I cant see how you can morally ask someone to kill another human being

I would do it and I'm sure I'm not the only one and any way our government is not afraid to send our soldiers out to kill those that threaten our society.
What's the difference?

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 3 2009, 11:17 AM

Hmmm, you mean beacuse of their mental disability? Like Derek Bentley.

And I mentioned those two in reply to Andrea calling for certain death for rapists & child killers. Both were innocent. If the death was de riguer at the time of their convictions doth would have been executed.

Posted by: GMR Aug 3 2009, 11:18 AM

I don't think he does, but I do. As you do.

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 3 2009, 11:20 AM

These ex convicts you know - would thay fall into the 20% who have been rehabilitated, or not?

Posted by: Simon Aug 3 2009, 11:20 AM

Bloggo, i agree with you here, there is no difference. But a personal opinion from me would be that if I was a soldier defending my country, i could kill. I would find it difficult being a soldier in a war i didnt believe in, likewise i dont think i could kill a criminal unless they had committed the crime against me or my family.

Posted by: GMR Aug 3 2009, 11:21 AM

We are living in different times so you can’t compare then and now if you had the death penalty now.

You will never get perfection whatever you do.

Posted by: GMR Aug 3 2009, 11:22 AM

No.... more so with jails being so 'cushy'. I was told because of that it is worth the risk.

Posted by: Simon Aug 3 2009, 11:24 AM

these were not bad people, they just made a few mistakes. I do not feel that serving their time where they were, would stop them making similar mistakes again.

I was prepared to hear horror stories on their return but got the opposite, I even visited one and was shocked that it looked nothing like on TV lol

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Aug 3 2009, 12:27 PM

My grandfather used to get the train to Strangeways with a certain Mr Albert Pierrepoint

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Pierrepoint

He was an extraordinary man and very thorough in his preparation. He also executed 200 Nazi War Criminals at Nurenburg and he took great pride in doing this.

Some posters on this forum would appear to want to forgive people such heinous crimes as the murder of millions of people. After all if you transalated the human rights that the European Court has foisted on us to the end of the 2nd World War then the Nazi Muderers would have been spared.

Posted by: Bloggo Aug 3 2009, 12:37 PM

Just remind yourself of the Baby Peter case. His evil mother and boyfriend should have been sentenced to death for the pain and suffering they subjected that child to.
A simple and clean double tap to the head would have been wholly approriate in that case.

Posted by: GMR Aug 3 2009, 01:11 PM

I read Albert Pierreopoint's autobiography many years ago.

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 3 2009, 01:27 PM

As the Nazi Party seems never to be far from this forum, look with what intentions they started -


http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/25points.htm

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 3 2009, 01:29 PM

So then, you know what he felt about the Death Penalty.

from that autobiography - "I have come to the conclusion that executions solve nothing, and are only an antiquated relic of a primitive desire for revenge which takes the easy way and hands over the responsibility for revenge to other people...The trouble with the death penalty has always been that nobody wanted it for everybody, but everybody differed about who should get off."

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Aug 3 2009, 01:52 PM

He only felt like that at the end of his career when the justice system got it all wrong in the Ellis case.

Posted by: Bill1 Aug 3 2009, 01:55 PM

Haven't had time to read any of this, but I would like to see the B*rstards who took a baseball bat to a NINE year old as he begged not to be hurt when his families home in Northern Ireland was attacked at the weekend strung up.

The evil cowards!

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 3 2009, 02:05 PM

Exactly. here was a chap who had carried out many executions & it only took one miscarriage to change his mind. What if some of of the others he hanged were also not guilty?

Posted by: GMR Aug 3 2009, 02:57 PM

Crime will never be solved; whether we have the death penalty or not. The idea for having it is punish those that have stepped over the mark.

Many executioners gave a different view.

Posted by: GMR Aug 3 2009, 02:59 PM

Who said they got it wrong where it concerned Ellis? She did murder her lover… some say she shouldn’t have been executed, others give a different verdict.

Posted by: Strafin Aug 3 2009, 03:01 PM

I haven't read through all this yet but my vote would be yes, but I think it should be optional for potential lifers who (if they are of sound mind) could choose it as an alternative to life. Although with life not meaning life anymore, I dount anyone would take it, but Fred West, or Ian Huntley would be good bets to have said yes.

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 3 2009, 03:04 PM

ever better then - she was guilty & he still wrote what he did.

Posted by: J C Aug 3 2009, 03:06 PM

Should we be looking at this from a different angle? That as a society we seem not to believe in reformed characters, that for the most heinous of crimes we cannot forgive therefore we look for tougher and tougher punishments so that ultimately the only thing left is the death sentance.
What if prisoners can reform and be truly repentant over their crimes? The only thing that then keeps them behind bars is societies reluctance to forgive. I know that this wouldn't work in all cases however I would think that more prisoners would be willing to admit their guilt and work through their issues if they knew at the end of it they had paid their debt to society and can walk out of jail with a clean slate.

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 3 2009, 03:11 PM

That will be the vigilante mob dealing out some punishment to an anti social youth. Quite common in Northen Ireland
from a BBC website -

Usually it is gangs that carry out the attacks. The motive can be a personal grudge or a real or imagined slight. Those singled out for attacks are often alleged by the paramilitaries to have been involved in crimes such as supplying drugs, or joyriding.

Most experts argue that the attacks are the result of a breakdown in law and order caused by The Troubles. In republican areas, the official police force, the RUC, has little credibility and members of the community turn to paramilitaries to "get something done" about petty criminals.

"There is an awful lot of feeling that they're getting some of what they deserve because of what they've done," says security expert Alan Murray. "Certainly in these areas, it's seen as swift justice - as certain justice."

Posted by: GMR Aug 3 2009, 03:18 PM

And would you still have the same feelings when a child abuser/ paedophile has raped and abused a child?

Posted by: GMR Aug 3 2009, 03:24 PM

Do you/ did you want to reform the Moore’s murderers so that they could be put back into our society? Or a paedophile who has abused a child? Prisons for some are just about that; punishment, not for reforming or even a deterrent but just simple punishment.

Posted by: lordtup Aug 3 2009, 03:48 PM

By the pure fact that this topic has had 55 replies in the short time it has been on air says an awful lot about peoples feelings on such an emotive issue.
Though it is probable that I would want to exact total revenge if someone murdered a loved one, I would not expect society to shoulder that responsibility even though they may feel that by removing this person from society will stop others doing it. A philosophy that doesn't stand up, so I must cast my vote with the No's

Posted by: J C Aug 3 2009, 04:05 PM

As I said it wouldn't work in all cases. With child offenders the focus seems to be on reforming them and releasing back into society as was seen with the two boys who killed Jamie Bulger. That was a horrific crime commited by two young boys, do you think that they should have been kept imprisoned longer than they were? Should they have faced the death penalty? I don't believe so. Do I believe that they have been released fully repentant for their crime after serving their sentances, yes I do, and also believe that they now have the right to try and build a life for themselves. However I think I may be in a minority here and there are probably lots of people who wouldn't ever be able to see past the crime

Posted by: Bill1 Aug 3 2009, 04:13 PM

Dannyboy responded

" That will be the vigilante mob dealing out some punishment to an anti social youth. Quite common in Northen Ireland"
from a BBC website -

Usually it is gangs that carry out the attacks. The motive can be a personal grudge or a real or imagined slight. Those singled out for attacks are often alleged by the paramilitaries to have been involved in crimes such as supplying drugs, or joyriding.

Most experts argue that the attacks are the result of a breakdown in law and order caused by The Troubles. In republican areas, the official police force, the RUC, has little credibility and members of the community turn to paramilitaries to "get something done" about petty criminals.

"There is an awful lot of feeling that they're getting some of what they deserve because of what they've done," says security expert Alan Murray. "Certainly in these areas, it's seen as swift justice - as certain justice."


What? Aged NINE FFS! I don't think so.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8180339.stm

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Aug 3 2009, 04:22 PM

I have a solution.

Those that want reform and councilling of prisoners all move to one area of the Country.

Those that want punishment and detention and in some cases the death penalty all move to another part of the Country.

Then when the Muderers, Rapists, Paedohilles etc come up for release just release them into the care of the community that does not want tough punishment but want to give these types another chance.

Probelm solved!!

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 3 2009, 04:28 PM

you miss my point - which is that this is the kind of thing you get when respect for the law ends & 'mob rule' takes over. Who decides who is punished & what for? I'm not condoning what happened here - this kind of beating has been happening for over a decade.

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 3 2009, 04:30 PM

It isn't about individual cases - it is about the culpability & falibility of the legal system.

Posted by: GMR Aug 3 2009, 06:16 PM

You ask the question; "should they have faced the death penalty?" As we are not emotionally attached to the victim(s) maybe we are not the right people to pose such a question to. Maybe you should ask the loved ones who parented the victims.

Posted by: GMR Aug 3 2009, 06:17 PM

You try telling that to the parents of the victims.

Posted by: GMR Aug 3 2009, 06:18 PM

The question then becomes; why has this sort of thing been happening over decades?

Posted by: GMR Aug 3 2009, 06:19 PM

Seems a good solution

Posted by: J C Aug 3 2009, 06:27 PM

As we aren't emotionally attached I would have thought we would be the best people to pose the question to!

Posted by: J C Aug 3 2009, 06:32 PM

Oh I'm all for tough punishment don't get me wrong, if a crime has been committed then a sentance must be passed and the criminal must serve that sentance. I just think that rehabilitation after that should be focussed on more. If society can accept that a criminal has paid his dues and trully repentant for the crime then maybe just maybe they would be able to get on with their lives as an equal citizen and not fall back to a life of crime again.

I also realise that this kind of scenario will not work everytime and that there are criminals out there who will never feel any guilt for what they do.

Posted by: Hugh Saskin Aug 3 2009, 06:38 PM

Not sure myself to be honest, but perhaps we'd better heed the words of Albert Pierrepoint (you will know who he is, I'm sure):


"I have come to the conclusion that executions solve nothing, and are only an antiquated relic of a primitive desire for revenge which takes the easy way and hands over the responsibility for revenge to other people...The trouble with the death penalty has always been that nobody wanted it for everybody, but everybody differed about who should get off."

Posted by: GMR Aug 3 2009, 06:42 PM

You mean as we are not emotionally attached we don't really care about others sufferings?

Maybe if people were emotionally attached we might have laws that reflect society's needs. That is the problem as the people who make the laws or administer the laws are usually financially well off and/ or in areas where they don't actually have the same problems other normal citizens have. That was the problem before the war; governments were emotionally unattached to the working classes. That was why they had such appalling conditions. Interestingly enough where we had laws that reflected the peoples suffering they were made by people who were emotionally attached: Aneurin Bevan (Health service), Lloyd Gorge (pensions etc) etc.

Posted by: Newbury Expat Aug 3 2009, 06:59 PM

Speaking as someone who lives in a place with a death penalty and has daily exposure to such a society I say no.

The main reason is it really doesn't serve as the deterrant you'd think it would. Gang-bangers still shoot each other as do the drug dealers and violent offenders. People still drive drunk and knock over kids even after a 7th offence. Cold-blooded killers still plot murders for love/money/revenge even with such a penalty.

If you're going to commit a crime worthy of capital punishment, you're basically doing it anyway. No amount of deterrant will prevent you from committing it. If you're talking about someone who 'loses their rag' a bit and kills someone without thinking, chance are it's not a capital offence anyway.

Whom do people see capital punishment deterring? Child killers? Serial killers? Rapists? Do you think it really would deter someone so sick in the head?

And even if you have it, how often do you go through with it? California has over 650 on death row (at massive expense to the taxpayer, ie me) and has execute fewer than 10. Texas is different but the UK is far more like California than Texas I think you'd agree.

Then what about the innocents? Do you trust our judicial system that much? For every life you save with this deterrent you probably execute someone who is not guilty.

And what form of execution? They all have drawbacks - there are horror stories about botched executions under any approach - could you endorse this?

In theory I think people see the death penalty as an 'easy button' to solve society's ills, but having lived somewhere with a real life death penalty in full swing, I guarantee it's no such thing.

Sorry for being so prosaic

Posted by: GMR Aug 3 2009, 07:12 PM

Why is everybody fixated with the word ‘deterrent’? The death penalty or any other means is a form of punishment for crimes committed; abhorrent crimes. It is a deterrent for some; however, the point is punishment. Or putting it another way, retribution.

I don’t think people see it as an ‘easy button’ but doing what it is meant do to; punish.

You can also look at it another way; who is to say that crime might not be even worse if it wasn’t for the ‘deterrent’ of the death penalty?

Posted by: Newbury Expat Aug 3 2009, 08:00 PM

Why have punishment if not to deter? Are we just blood thirsty 'justice' seekers? Eye for an eye and all that? And it's punishment if you carry it out right? Well how? And to whom? I say 'easy button' because its rare that people think through the full consequences beyond saying, death penalty, yes, punish them.

I've always preferred prevention than cure, so that certainly colours my point of view on this one.

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 3 2009, 08:11 PM

Do you mean the families of people wrongly executed?

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 3 2009, 08:15 PM

The USA has, per capita the higest prison population in the World. So punishment isn't working - the USA has some of the most draconian legeslation in the World, designed purely as a deterent. If this isn't stopping crime, then prevention is the obvious next step. Help people out of the poverty trap, help them take pride in a good days work so that there is no recourse to crime in the first place.

Posted by: GMR Aug 3 2009, 08:21 PM

People shouldn't be wrongly executed and the system should be looked at, but that isn't a reason for stopping it. I presume you are talking about America? In Britain we haven't had an execution since 1964.

As you know I was talking about the victims of murderers, child abusers and rapists.

Posted by: GMR Aug 3 2009, 08:30 PM

I agree with your last comments; but we are talking America here and it is a capitalist country. The point being that money is more important than the well being of the individual. Executing them/ or throwing them in jail is preferred by the tax payer than putting money in to help them out. There are millions in America that haven't even got basic health care.

Posted by: GMR Aug 3 2009, 08:32 PM

I am all for it if it works, but it doesn't/ won't. In the mean time those people are put back on the streets again to abuse, rape, murder, child molest etc.

Posted by: Newbury Expat Aug 3 2009, 08:49 PM

Which is why I advocate life (meaning life until the day you die) sentences rather than these wishy washy life with the possibility of parole after 23 minutes sentences.

So I think in essence we agree

Posted by: GMR Aug 3 2009, 08:58 PM

Yes; but one other thing. If we are going to give them life until they die then it mustn't be this soft homely life that they currently have in prison.

Posted by: Iommi Aug 3 2009, 09:02 PM

The future is in 'predictive detection'. Generally, people are much less likely to commit crime if they know they are likely to be detected. The DP won't be back, it is unworkable, even if we could bring it back for the most heinous of crimes.

Posted by: Newbury Expat Aug 3 2009, 09:03 PM

With regards to the capitalist point it's interesting to note that keeping an inmate on death row is vastly more expensive than for a regular lifer for environments where the death penalty is in place but not used as often and still we have death row with hundreds of inmates.

The health care issue is a big one right now with Obama's current plans and I agree it's pretty sad that the healthcare system fails so many. I feel that doctors here can always do without the second Porsche - but that's unAmerican apparantly

Mind you whenever I talk this through with people here they respond that they thought the UK also doesn't have basic health care for millions unless the NHS has changed recently. Gits.


From the Commission on Fair Administration of Justice:

Posted by: Newbury Expat Aug 3 2009, 09:07 PM

Agreed again.

Although it's fictionalized, try watching Oz. Of course that's US prisons not British ones but I sure as heck wouldn't want to spend one minute inside there.

Posted by: GMR Aug 3 2009, 09:07 PM

I disagree; if people are caught they know that at least they will be treated with all the comforts of home, apart from one; freedom to leave their confinement. But saying that there are open prisons.

To make what you say correct we've got to make prisons a very nasty place so that nobody wants to go there/ or come back. They even can get drugs in prison; in case you are even missing that.

Posted by: GMR Aug 3 2009, 09:09 PM

Again i agree... I was talking about British prisons.

At least I know that if I decided to commit a crime I would have all the comforts of home and even more.

Posted by: GMR Aug 3 2009, 09:11 PM

The NHS has always had health care for everybody... well, from 1948.

Posted by: Iommi Aug 3 2009, 09:18 PM

If one can predict crime or a criminal, then you have a solution. This is the future.

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 3 2009, 09:26 PM

you were not watching BBC2 this evening then.............

Posted by: GMR Aug 3 2009, 09:33 PM

Are you talking about "Trouble with girls"? I am watching it now.

Posted by: GMR Aug 3 2009, 09:35 PM

Predicting criminals in future? So, you are saying if we know a baby is going to be a mass murderer we can put it in jail?

Posted by: Iommi Aug 3 2009, 09:53 PM

I don't remember 'waying' that!

Posted by: GMR Aug 3 2009, 09:57 PM

I was going to take the mickey out of you saying 'waying' until I released it was I who said it wrong (and you who is taking the mickey); so I'll keep my mouth shut

Posted by: Wicca Aug 3 2009, 10:09 PM

Sounds like Minority Report to me, now that system might work

Posted by: GMR Aug 3 2009, 10:14 PM

Sounds a good idea, apart from the ending. Based on Dick's book the film was set in 2054 and the star, played by Cruise, is a member of an experimental police force know as Precrime; which uses future visions to solve the crimes. But like all films/ books nothing goes to plan.

Posted by: Wicca Aug 3 2009, 10:19 PM

But then all ideas, new or old sound plausible, until you look deeper and starting sifting the bad from the good. Unfortunately anything we come up with to combat crime will have supporters and an opposition.

Posted by: Iommi Aug 3 2009, 10:27 PM

Yes, it is a constant battle. One only has, however, to think what we can achieve now compared to say, 100 years ago. The Minority Report scenario wasn't quite what I had in mind, but we have to recognise early where to place investment in children to mitigate future destructive development. As much as some here would love to see people swinging from a rope, it is a wasted desire. It might make a return, but it would be in a different form than we would recognise.

The other problem I see we have, is that there are too many of us that are not worth our existence. It is here where I think we incubate violent crime.

Posted by: Newbury Expat Aug 3 2009, 10:37 PM

So reading back on what everybody is saying I think what we are all barrelling towards is a consensus opinion that all violent offenders by turned into human bollards in Newbury Town Centre and if one occasionally gets hit, people wouldn't moan too much

Posted by: GMR Aug 3 2009, 10:39 PM

Are we talking eugenics here?

Posted by: GMR Aug 3 2009, 10:43 PM

I think if they were turned into human bollards they would get hit more often than they do now. In fact I'd go further and say they would probably be disfigured; depending on the sort of crimes they committed

That idea probably would be a lot better than the death penalty.

Posted by: Iommi Aug 3 2009, 11:06 PM

I don't think there is anything in my text suggests this, but this is another avenue that will at some point be pursued in some degree - but not in our life time.

Posted by: GMR Aug 3 2009, 11:17 PM

Granted; there maybe nothing in your text that actually said you were for eugenics, however, there was nothing in your text that suggested that you were against it either

You said "not in our life time"; but it has been practised in recent times; i.e. my the Nazi's and further back by the American government (early 1900's).

If crime should grow to unmanageable proportions then I have no doubt it will be considered. The greater good and all that crap.

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 3 2009, 11:23 PM

Thats the one.

now you can watch the US version on channel 5.

Posted by: GMR Aug 3 2009, 11:27 PM

Yes I saw it; I felt sorry for the girls, their home life etc.

Posted by: Iommi Aug 3 2009, 11:47 PM

I never said you should wash a television in the bath either!


It has crudely been experimented with back then, but my prediction is based on presumed successful solutions.


It will possibly be perceived as a better solution to the DP. Lets face it, we are re-inventing food, why not eventually people?

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 4 2009, 12:41 AM

Hoo ****inray.

So now maybe you can see why endless threat of prison, no second chance & no job is not going to solve anything.
What those girls need is a meaningful place in society, a job & a chance to get themselves out of the ***** hole existence they live in. Both said as much

Their dads need a kick up the **** too. The scene when the girl wanted money to go to the cinema was particularly hard to watch. What she was really saying was I want is a hug, love and the care of a parent. That that thick **** just spent his time looking at his PC says much for where she now finds herself.
Neither, despite thier camera bravado wanted to go back to jail.

Both were headstrong & elequent girls. If I had a firm up north, I'd give them both a chance.

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 4 2009, 12:42 AM

I say, Forbes, this gob****e forum edits ones posts,.

Posted by: Strafin Aug 4 2009, 07:38 AM

Sombody must have done something pretty bad, and if it means the perpetrators are moving away then it's had the desired effect. I don't necessarily condone this, but I can understand it.

Posted by: GMR Aug 4 2009, 09:20 AM

Well… I did wash the TV in the bath.

I can image sometime in the future we end up having a eugenics war. The way things are going it seems inevitable.

Posted by: GMR Aug 4 2009, 09:31 AM

I don’t disagree with any thing you say. I would also be opposed to the death penalty if there was a better way. But there isn’t, or if there is the powers that be are keeping it a secret.

My problem is with all this is the good and honest are suffering while everybody - including you -are talking about ways of improving things (helping the less ‘unfortunate‘), but nothing is actually happening (it is just bloody talk). In fact while you talk people are suffering. Shouldn’t they be first? The death penalty, life in prison (hard life, not soft life) or whatever should be put in place until idealists like yourself can manage to put in place a system that helps them; without others suffering.

The trouble is idealists have being saying for hundreds of years that another way must be tried, and for hundreds of years victims have been suffering because of those people you want to protect. As I said, I am all for helping and improving peoples lives, but not at the expense of decent and honesty people. Our priority must be their welfare; that is paramount.


Also; we look at those girls but don't mention their victims.

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 4 2009, 10:24 AM

They are also victims. The one girl was only in & out of court because she'd been caught in possession of a controlled substance and kept missing her Social Services meetings. Both wanted to sort their lives out. Both were immature.

What is Idealist about giving someone a job instead of righting them off? I'd call it common sense. I'm not 'protecting' anyone. Surely society as a whole is the winner? Less crime, less people the victims of crime. You yourself have already said that , to use your statistics, 80% of those sent to prison re-offend. So that obviously isn't working.

Posted by: GMR Aug 4 2009, 10:41 AM

First of there is two points here; those girls are not in the same league as more serious criminals; which need a different solution.

I agree that they need help; what is ‘idealistic’ about it is that it is all talk and those girls are not getting the help you mentioned. What annoys me is we talk about what should be done, but it never gets done. Therefore we should lock those kids up so that they are out of harms way. Of course you will disagree, only putting nothing in its place other than more talk. What that programme didn’t show you, but hinted upon, was the anti-social behaviour they exude.

Yes they are ‘victims’, but so are the ‘victims’ they cause offence too.

Posted by: Iommi Aug 4 2009, 11:41 AM

Is it not morally incumbent on society to help the less fortunate? Many of these people are born into deprivation, it isn't necessarily a life style choice. Had some of these people been born into a 'good' family, they could just as easily gone on to make a wholesome life for themselves, but due to no fault of their own (they didn't chose their parents) they are 'integrated' into 'their' society. Just locking them up in a life of misery doesn't seem fair either.

Posted by: GMR Aug 4 2009, 11:53 AM

I agree. So what are you suggesting? That they infringe on decent people in society and we should turn a blind eye? Who is the priority here? The decent hard working person who has never done any harm to anybody or the anti-social person who has had a rough life? As nobody is doing anything for the poor misguided anti-social behaviourist shouldn’t we concentrate on those that are the innocent victims of the misunderstand cretins of our society?


Just one think; there are many people in our society who have had a rough life, but has managed to stand on their own two feet without infringing on other peoples space.

Posted by: Iommi Aug 4 2009, 01:09 PM

Where did I say we should do nothing?


An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Try to remove the need and reason that people offend, that should be the focus in my opinion.


Just as there have been many very lucky people who haven't been seduced by crime due to the privileged up-bringing they have enjoyed.

On topic.

The solutions like the DP will almost certainly impinge on otherwise, good folk, as bad. For the DP to work as a deterrent, it has to be indiscriminate and unambiguous. I think it has to be for all murderers and that is why I am not convinced by its merits.

Posted by: Bloggo Aug 4 2009, 01:20 PM

[. For the DP to work as a deterrent, it has to be indiscriminate and unambiguous. I think it has to be for all murderers and that is why I am not convinced by its merits.
[/quote]

I don't understand what you are trying to say here.
I would have thought that the DP should be discriminate. ie.
It would be mandatory for Police murders, Serial Killers, Child Killers, Killer rapists. I think those classes are pretty unambiguous.
I also think that there should be a 5 year mandatory sentence for carrying a knife or firearm.
In general I think the sentencing should be toughened up right across the board.

Posted by: Iommi Aug 4 2009, 01:26 PM

The DP started to fail as a deterrent when people could argue a defence. It was easier for 'real' killers to plead mitigation. For the DP to work as a deterrent, it has to be for all in my view.


Yes and stop and search should be ramped up.

Posted by: Bloggo Aug 4 2009, 01:42 PM

[quote name='Iommi' date='Aug 4 2009, 02:26 PM' post='4523']
The DP started to fail as a deterrent when people could argue a defence. It was easier for 'real' killers to plead mitigation. For the DP to work as a deterrent, it has to be for all in my view.


Sorry Iommi I must be misunderstanding you.
I don't think the DP failed at all. It was repealed because of "humane reasons" ie it is not something that acivilized society should be seen to be doing.

All criminals argue a plea for mitigation as part of their defence. This is where their slippery lawyers try any excuse to get them off regardless of whether they did the crime or not.

My argument is if you are found guilty of any of the "murders "I stated in my last post then you get the DP.
Maybe you allow an appeal for additional defence evidence to be submitted but after that....end of!

Posted by: GMR Aug 4 2009, 01:55 PM

I agree, so when are we going to start? Or putting it another way when are you going to start because governments are not going start any such programme. In fact with talk of problems with the economy/ NHS etc helping the less unfortunate is way down the list. So; where now? Shouldn’t our resources be put to helping the victims of crime; ie innocent people? And the only way I can see that happening at the moment is that we eliminate the trouble makers by the easiest and cheapest option.




So we do nothing?

Posted by: Bloggo Aug 4 2009, 02:02 PM

Shouldn’t our resources be put to helping the victims of crime; ie innocent people? And the only way I can see that happening at the moment is that we eliminate the trouble makers by the easiest and cheapest option.


I agree with you. Lets do it and lets do it now.
Trouble is the government won't allow a referendum because they expect the answer would be positve for the DP.

Posted by: GMR Aug 4 2009, 02:54 PM

As no resources will ever be put to the feral species on our planet then we will have to think outside the box so that we can protect the inoffensive in our culture.


So much talk is about helping the ‘bad apples’ in our society; and that is the problem talk does not equal action. While we talk others suffer.

Posted by: Instigator Aug 4 2009, 04:23 PM

Jumping in a bit late here,

Murderers, Rapists, those that interfere with children in anyway, should be shot, I dont mind applying for the Job either, I would sleep perfectly well at night.

I don't care how far society has supposedly come, or that we lower ourselves by having the death penalty, those that commit those type of crimes are not here to benefit and help mankind.

Before anyone gets it twisted, by Murderer, I mean those that go out with the intention of ending someones life, not manslaughter. I know I dont have to point that out to most of you, but you know how some people will find something and run with it!!

Posted by: Iommi Aug 4 2009, 05:36 PM

I'd like to point people to this web page, which seems to make some good pro and anti CP arguments.

http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org/thoughts.html

It was failing because people were getting away with it that shouldn't and other people were sentenced that perhaps shouldn't.


That's one of my points.


And your incessant posts regards bringing back abandoned penal codes is going to be any more successful?


And what might that be, the emphasis is on easiest and cheapest? Capitol and corporal punishment are out because as a nation we promised not to use them.


You can if you want, but - again - those are your words, not mine.

Posted by: Sarah Aug 4 2009, 05:42 PM

A Life Sentence should mean imprisoned until death, but as for the Death Sentence, a definite NO.

It's totally barbaric for a start, and the risk of a Miscarriage of Justice is far too high.

Put it another way, if a member of your family, was wrongly found guilty of murder, and given the Death Penalty how would you feel? Too late several years down the line for the powers that be to find they had made a mistake.

Posted by: GMR Aug 4 2009, 06:21 PM

Abandoning it hasn’t achieved anything either; other than increase the people who murder to feel freer to continue murdering without the fear of being executed for their troubles. In fact what they get for their troubles seems to be comfort and being well looked after. They actually get all the amenities of home (in fact a lot more than you would get at home), except one; to walk freely outside their environment.



So if we promise something we have to keep it? Changing circumstances doesn’t come into the equation then?

“what now” seems to be doing nothing.



Ok, what do you plan to do as you don’t want the death penalty brought back? Allow the status quo; murderers and child abusers to continue on their merry way?

Posted by: GMR Aug 4 2009, 06:23 PM

The trouble is life doesn't mean life; with good behaviour they could be out within a couple of years. The same 'rewards' doesn't apply to the people who have died at the hands of the child abusers, serial killers etc.

On top of that their prison sentence is just luxury confinement.

Posted by: JeffG Aug 4 2009, 06:56 PM

This whole debate is pretty pointless IMO, unless it's just a way of letting off steam. There is no way that capital punishment is ever going to be re-instated, however many petitions/refererendums etc. there are. It is not possible in law.

Unless we leave the EU, which is not going to happen either.

Posted by: Iommi Aug 4 2009, 06:57 PM

I never said it has, I'm just pointing out that in practical terms, what you are proposing is a waste of...typing...and perhaps, rather than just forming two camps, we might collectively explore other ideas.


What do you really think?


And the DP will cure it? It won't.

Posted by: GMR Aug 4 2009, 07:18 PM

Voicing ones concerns/ opinions is never waste of time. Basically you are saying 'we've got a dictatorship so roll over and play dead."

Posted by: GMR Aug 4 2009, 07:24 PM

I am all for that. What other areas do you want to explore? Whatever areas you want to explore we’ve got to keep it realistic and in the governments capabilities.



Are you asking me or being sarcastic? Because I’ve lost track to whatever it is i am supposed to think about



Cure it, no... but will remove the problem until we are able to solve it.

Posted by: Iommi Aug 4 2009, 07:35 PM

The causes of crime for starters.

Posted by: GMR Aug 4 2009, 07:38 PM

We know what causes crime; people stealing, murdering, abuse, robbery, etc etc

Now we've solved that one we should move on to the means of disposing of them. How about the death penalty?

Posted by: Iommi Aug 4 2009, 07:42 PM

You've broken your own rules already!


BTW - Have you seen there's a program about crime on at 9 o'clock on BBC1?

Posted by: GMR Aug 4 2009, 08:19 PM

Yes.. it is in three parts and this week is no 3. I've watched the other when they were on. Today's I am taping and will watch some time this week.

As for breaking my own rules; maybe I'll get the death penalty

Posted by: Darren Aug 5 2009, 05:14 AM

How about a disused oil platform in the North Sea instead. Drop them all off there and let them get on with it. Any managing to swim back to shore can be set free.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Aug 5 2009, 07:53 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8183821.stm

Can anyone see this working??? Don't they learn anything this Government. ASBOS are pointless and these new VOO'S will not make a jot of difference to anyone who is **** bent on Stabbing or Murdering anyone that they hold a grudge against (like any poor inncocent sap who may have stood up in Court and put a thug away).

Just makes you realise that this Government has not got a clue.

Posted by: J C Aug 5 2009, 08:02 AM

How about shipping them off to some far away island on the other side of the world

Posted by: GMR Aug 5 2009, 09:09 AM

Suggestions have been made like this before, with one difference; your idea is softer

Posted by: GMR Aug 5 2009, 09:14 AM

You seem to miss the point. It is all about giving the impression to the gullible public that they are doing something… not actually doing something.

Remember Blair’s ‘tough or crime, tough on the causes of crime’? It was said to get him into Downing Street, not to actually do what his words said they would do. Once in he could put his feet up and watch the country go to pot; which it has done since Labour have been in power.

Posted by: Iommi Aug 5 2009, 09:24 AM

Yes, I feel this is designed to appear to be doing something practical, but it is likely to fail to be administered properly, as per ASBOs.


I understand that violent crime fell under Bliar (sic).

Posted by: GMR Aug 5 2009, 09:36 AM

I agree.




Actually no. What has happened was that people have become so disillusioned with the police, courts and government that people stopped reporting crime; thus giving the impression it has gone down.

The programme you mentioned, that was on last night; last weeks episode confirmed that people have stopped reporting crime. Estimates say that it has gone up double.

Posted by: Iommi Aug 5 2009, 11:03 AM

IIRC - they said low level crime was not properly recorded, not necessarily because people don't report it, which is also true.

The BCS figures for violent crime, which is what I was referring to, has statistically gone down since Bliar's mob come in to power.

"Longer-term trends from the BCS show that violent crime increased since the first BCS results in 1981 to peak in 1995, followed by a gradual decline then stability in recent years.

• The number of violent incidents has fallen by half (48%) since 1995, representing an estimated two million fewer incidents and around three-quarters of a million fewer victims; violent crime is now at a similar level to 1981. "

This is BCS, i.e. people have been interviewed.

Souce: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0708chap3.pdf

Posted by: GMR Aug 5 2009, 11:11 AM

You know what Disraeli said about statistics; “there are lies, damn lies and statistics.”

I disagree with your prognosis, or their prognosis. Crime has gone up, just not recorded.

Actually the conservatives gave different figures on it. Which goes to show you that done of them can be trusted.

Posted by: Iommi Aug 5 2009, 11:33 AM

If true, then you are not entitled to make your point either, as we have both in our instances, drawn our opinions (as facts) based on statistics.


You are missing the word 'violent', the stats are claiming 'violent crime', not overall crime. The program last night claimed that antisocial behaviour (ASB) was overlooked, not necessarily violent crime. Indeed, the independent survey they carried out, violent crime wasn't top of the list of people's concerns.


Even if true, under their stewardship, violent crime rose in any case.

Posted by: Bloggo Aug 5 2009, 11:38 AM

I find it amazing that despite whatever figures you read and from what source you get them from you don't believe that levels of all crime are on the increase.
You have to be very naive to think that crime levels are not going up year on year. Any government will feed you figures that have been massaged to reflect a secure and relatively safe environment to keep themselves in power.
My experience of witnessing acts of crime, vandalism and anti social behaviour has increased over the past few years.
I think you ignore the signs at your peril.

Posted by: Iommi Aug 5 2009, 12:16 PM

Please explain where I have said I don't beleive all crime has or hasn't gone up. Besides, for the third time, I said violent crime, NOT all crime.


I might be naive (which is unfair I think), but relying on hear say is just as, if not more unreliable as well.


That might be true and I am inclined to believe it somewhat, but it is the job of the opposition to expose these kind of things, but in the absence of credible alternative claims, one must give them reasonable credence.


In all honesty, things have stayed the same for me. One experiences periodic peaks, but plenty of quiet also. I will say, in my opinion, children have become more unruly and obnoxious, but I would not be able to substantiate that, it is pure opinion.


Well, you better go and barricade the doors to your home then, because they're coming to get you!


Look, fair enough, but what doesn't help, is when vocal members of the community spout opinion as fact. This is because as soon as something is said that is doubtful, I begin to treat what they say with a pinch of salt, which is sad, because I'm sure everyone has, to varying degrees of accuracy, something useful to say.

Posted by: Strafin Aug 5 2009, 12:30 PM

I think that the internet is full of so called facts and people are too quick to accept the first ones they come across, look at all the virus hoaxes that get bandied around, and email horror stories. I take everything with a pinch of salt, even stuff that I'm looking up myself.

Posted by: GMR Aug 5 2009, 02:35 PM

True; but I am going by what people say and what I see.




I think it is important, but not the top of peoples lists if they’ve got more serious problems.




They can afford to say that as it was 12 years ago since they were last in power and nobody on the present shadow cabinet were around; well, apart from on or two like Ken Clarke.

Posted by: lordtup Aug 9 2009, 12:37 PM

Has a consensus emerged from this question ?
If so can it be interpreted as being demographic or no more than a straw poll.

Posted by: GMR Aug 9 2009, 02:22 PM

Yes there has. We are now grouping ourselves into ‘fighters of justice’ and have set up our courts and brought our equipment... we just need a victim

Posted by: Iommi Aug 11 2009, 07:52 AM

Coming down harder on criminals: I can see an emotional sponsor to feel this is a good way to react. The problem I have is every time government or similar invent new penal methods to serious crime, it affects the non violent citizens as well. I'm thinking of surveillance and the anti terrorist laws. You now have peaceful protesters on anti terror databases and people being ejected out of party conferences, etc.

Of programs that I have seen, none seem to advocate harder sentences, but often show non aggressive solutions that are demonstrated to 'work'.

Posted by: GMR Aug 11 2009, 09:52 AM

I agree totally here. This is where it becomes a vicious circle; if the police don't do anything we get situations as we do now, if they do react (the police) they abuse the law themselves for their own satisfaction. However, and as we have seen, people are starting to fight back and taking the police to court for abusing their powers or using such powers for ordinary events that were designed for serious situations.

Posted by: Hugh Saskin Aug 11 2009, 07:59 PM

Errr - you sure??? , I was always brought up to believe it was Mark Twain - or did he mysteriously get brushed by a bus in Northbrook St, too, and fail to put pen to paper again

Posted by: GMR Aug 11 2009, 08:07 PM

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" was created by the 19th Century British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli and later popularised in the United States by Mark Twain.

Posted by: Hugh Saskin Aug 12 2009, 06:13 AM

Surely you're not now claiming to have witnessed Disraeli getting brushed by a bus as well?

Posted by: GMR Aug 12 2009, 09:27 AM

Well.... I am probably older than you think.


One slight observation if I may; more horse and coach in Disraeli's time.... However, the first known bus was date to 1662 (but and as I said, early horse-drawn buses were a combination of a hackney carriage and a stagecoach. ). Large-horse drawn public transport bus services were not launched until the 1820s. Disraeli died in 1881. But as you didn't specify what sort of bus you were talking about then technically you are right... or possibly right.

Posted by: Hugh Saskin Aug 12 2009, 09:41 AM

Fair play to you Glenn - just leave the stovepipe hat off when you are cycling though, ok? It's a bit of a giveaway

Posted by: GMR Aug 12 2009, 10:00 AM

I am pleased you have a sense of humour; if only there were more like you (and there are some) on this forum we'd be close to perfection...


As for my "stovepipe hat"; it is called uniqueness to some... others would probably say six months in a confined space

All the best,

Glenn

Posted by: Iommi Aug 12 2009, 10:01 AM

When you two are quite finished, we're trying to hang someone here!

Posted by: Bloggo Aug 12 2009, 10:09 AM

There's a bit of "bonding" going on here.
You know what the old boys can be like.

Posted by: GMR Aug 12 2009, 10:14 AM

Now that was funny

Posted by: GMR Aug 12 2009, 10:15 AM

Can I be the hangman?

Posted by: Bloggo Aug 12 2009, 01:26 PM

After me mate. I was there first