Lookers_Carl Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 I have little time for the Convention, but I am absolutely against the death penalty. 1. It doesn't act as a deterrent - people who commit crime rarely expect to be caught. 2. It isn't cheaper than life in prison - death row prisoners in the USA cost significantly more than lifers. 3. Even DNA evidence isn't perfect - the risk of a mistake reamins. 4. It doesn't reduce crime. South Africa has the death penalty and a high murder rate; Scandinavian countries don't have the death penalty and have low murder rates. 5. Why let evil murdering bastards find peace by killing them? Agreed, no time for it for the reasons stated by 04U However, I am a firm believer that a life sentence should mean for life, and the rights of the victims and the public should be well and truly put before the rights of the offenders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 I should say that military occupation by the world's greatest superpower plus the threat of uncle joe does more to explain peace in europe. At present i dont think there is any greater threat to harmony than the entirely predictable consequences of the single currency project. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Burns Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 Too many innocent people would die. Worst idea ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 Why is the life of one worth more than that of another? Is a police officers life worth more than a securicor man (if killed in the line of duty). Or Johnny shelfstacker who gets in the way of an armed robbery? Eggsackerley. two words "Stephan Kizco " The bent cops who fitted him up should have been hanged for stealing the larger part of his life. That wasnt a mistake, it was a crime. It would be nice if the Kiszko case was a simple fit-up by the police, but it wasn't quite like that. He was the only suspect in the case from the beginning, and it can safely be said that the police didn't bust a gut to find anyone else (and that they used some fairly rustic interrogation methods) but the major share of the blame goes to his defence barrister - one David Waddington, who later became Home Secretary under Thatcher. He could have proved Kiszko's innocence there and then at the trial, but decided he couldn't be bothered. Another interesting fact about that case - unless I'm mistaken - is that the real killer was eventually identified and convicted using technology that did not exist at the time of the original investigation. That's another argument against the death penalty. You could have a police fit-up (especially if feelings among the constabulary are running high after the death of one of their own), and you could have a lame defence. Too many people can make mistakes. Plus a new investigative technique might yield more accurate results, rendering unsafe a decision that was at one time thought to be safe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Ritchie Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 What would be a good idea is if you got someone who was up for the death sentence and put them on a Takeshi’s castle/total wipeout course. In the water on the course are alligators and sharks with Stanley knife fins. The victim’s family get to shoot beanbags at the accused if they so wish. If the accused gets through this then they go into the final zone where they must dash 100 metres past four tapirs, an ostrich and six geese. If they get through all this then they are free to go. Fairest way innit! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 two words "Stephan Kizco " Two more, topically: Winston Silcott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 If you want to go down the Help Shiny route, Abu Dhabi shows the way. They've only executed one person in the last few decades (and he really did need it) but apparently they are quite happy to let people escape from the prison they keep "third country nationals" in, on the basis that they will die a horrible death in the desert anyway. It probably isnt very nice in that jail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 I should say that military occupation by the world's greatest superpower plus the threat of uncle joe does more to explain peace in europe. At present i dont think there is any greater threat to harmony than the entirely predictable consequences of the single currency project. I wouldn't dispute the US's influence is a reason, one of many, as is political unity. The binds that hold the EU together are meant to make it harder for other states to do many things in isolation, such a kicking the poo out of another. As for economic mess, its not exclusive to the EU. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 his defence barrister - one David Waddington Prosecuting barrister Peter Taylor (later Lord Justice Taylor who had a certain impact on football supporters later on). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 Prosecuting barrister Peter Taylor (later Lord Justice Taylor who had a certain impact on football supporters later on). Nothing succeeds like failure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
help_shiny Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 Nail 'em up! Nail some sense into 'em! While a small majority of us would like to see it brought back it never will be. It falls very firmly into the category of 'the ruling class knows best'. It's one of those things we, the great unwashed, cannot be trusted on and will never be allowed to decide upon. And even if we did it's illegal under European law which brings me to another one of those things that the three headed House of Commons beast has decided isnt for us stupid little cretins to ever get to make a decision over. Unless they're 100% bang on sure that it's the same thing they want of course.Those countries foolish enough to let their public decide on these matters are then forced to make them keep voting until they come up with the right answer. Rise up! Rise up Brothers & Sisters! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stitch_KTF Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 However, I am a firm believer that a life sentence should mean for life It's just terminology. If "life meant life" then it would be a sentence dished out less often. Presumably about as often as 'life without parole' is today, and we'd be back where we were. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 Nail 'em up! Nail some sense into 'em! While a small majority of us would like to see it brought back it never will be. It falls very firmly into the category of 'the ruling class knows best'. It's one of those things we, the great unwashed, cannot be trusted on and will never be allowed to decide upon. And even if we did it's illegal under European law which brings me to another one of those things that the three headed House of Commons beast has decided isnt for us stupid little cretins to ever get to make a decision over. Unless they're 100% bang on sure that it's the same thing they want of course.Those countries foolish enough to let their public decide on these matters are then forced to make them keep voting until they come up with the right answer. Rise up! Rise up Brothers & Sisters! I've heard that one. That Paul Staines one says it a lot - talking about arrogant politicians and this and that. There's just one problem. If you or Paul Staines or uncle Tom Cobleigh want to change the law in any given way, you are entirely free, subject to certain restrictions, to get your name on a ballot paper and allow the good electors of this or that area to make the decision. Are you standing, or just shouting about those who do not doing what you want? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
help_shiny Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 I've heard that one. That Paul Staines one says it a lot - talking about arrogant politicians and this and that. There's just one problem. If you or Paul Staines or uncle Tom Cobleigh want to change the law in any given way, you are entirely free, subject to certain restrictions, to get your name on a ballot paper and allow the good electors of this or that area to make the decision. Are you standing, or just shouting about those who do not doing what you want? I'm shouting of course. Yes, I'm free to set up my own campaign but it would fail. Give me the funds of one of the major political parties, give me a national newspaper or two to support me and I'm away. Strip whichever party you favour, Labour if memory serves me right - forgive me if I'm wrong, of all of it's money, all of it's backers, any support from any media, take away the history of the party so that people arent voting for you 'just because I always have' or their parents or grandparents did. Make it a completely clean slate, with just you and people you know in the area as it's members. Stand for election in any constituency in the country and you would lose your deposit. Then, magically spirit Labour(/whoever) back into existence, stand for election in the same constituency and hey presto, you're back in business. The 'why dont you stand yourself argument' - against party machines with far more resources and members than you could ever dream of is an empty one. You occasionally get an Independent winning an election because of some strongly held local feelings towards one issue or another but the chances of a new party springing up and pushing the current incumbents out of the way is nil. Imagine the furore if there was a 'Hang 'Em, Flog 'Em' Party* that actually did have some kind of funding. All three of the established parties would immediately present a common front against them, the likes of the Daily Mail would remember it's heart belongs to the Tories.There would be the most intense scrutiny on the past activities or private lives of it's leading members by the media. There would probably be a Question Time with a rigged audience of screeching Guardianistas to show how ridiculous these 'extremists' are when faced with the withering comments of the outraged moral minority. There'd probably be big pop concerts set up for the kids to show up to and show their displeasure at the new reactionary party in the form of dance. So I'm not going to put my name on the ballot paper. What I'll do instead is occasionally moan at the great stitch up. It'll make the same difference either way. Plus there's the indisputable fact that my 'Hang 'Em, Flog 'Em' Party will have a higher than average ratio of bulging eyed loons in it's membership and I'm not prepared to sit in committe rooms with that sort, oh no. * - I realise there actually is a party that is all for hanging and flogging but I suspect they dont represent the vast majority of the 50+% who would like hanging brought back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
help_shiny Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 and on another note - if anyone fancies setting up a London Freikorps to cleanse the streets of our fair capital of riotous youth give me a shout. To arms! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 I'm shouting of course. Yes, I'm free to set up my own campaign but it would fail. Give me the funds of one of the major political parties, give me a national newspaper or two to support me and I'm away. Strip whichever party you favour, Labour if memory serves me right - forgive me if I'm wrong, of all of it's money, all of it's backers, any support from any media, take away the history of the party so that people arent voting for you 'just because I always have' or their parents or grandparents did. Make it a completely clean slate, with just you and people you know in the area as it's members. Stand for election in any constituency in the country and you would lose your deposit. Then, magically spirit Labour(/whoever) back into existence, stand for election in the same constituency and hey presto, you're back in business. The 'why dont you stand yourself argument' - against party machines with far more resources and members than you could ever dream of is an empty one. You occasionally get an Independent winning an election because of some strongly held local feelings towards one issue or another but the chances of a new party springing up and pushing the current incumbents out of the way is nil. Imagine the furore if there was a 'Hang 'Em, Flog 'Em' Party* that actually did have some kind of funding. All three of the established parties would immediately present a common front against them, the likes of the Daily Mail would remember it's heart belongs to the Tories.There would be the most intense scrutiny on the past activities or private lives of it's leading members by the media. There would probably be a Question Time with a rigged audience of screeching Guardianistas to show how ridiculous these 'extremists' are when faced with the withering comments of the outraged moral minority. There'd probably be big pop concerts set up for the kids to show up to and show their displeasure at the new reactionary party in the form of dance. So I'm not going to put my name on the ballot paper. What I'll do instead is occasionally moan at the great stitch up. It'll make the same difference either way. Plus there's the indisputable fact that my 'Hang 'Em, Flog 'Em' Party will have a higher than average ratio of bulging eyed loons in it's membership and I'm not prepared to sit in committe rooms with that sort, oh no. * - I realise there actually is a party that is all for hanging and flogging but I suspect they dont represent the vast majority of the 50+% who would like hanging brought back. You say that 50%+ support hanging, but they obviously need to organise and get elected, so that we know they're serious. Otherwise it's just talk. If they're serious, they'll do it; if not, they won't. Anyone can sit there at the keyboard and click buttons, but it's way too cheap to change anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 The rioting does raise very legitimate questions as to why decent law abiding citizens are denied the right to hold assault weaponry in defence of their homes, families and businesses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
help_shiny Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 "so that we know they're serious" - who is 'we'? The ruling Oligarchy of which you are a faithful lapdog? Cast off your blinkers Citizen. Rise up! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 "so that we know they're serious" - who is 'we'? The ruling Oligarchy of which you are a faithful lapdog? Cast off your blinkers Citizen. Rise up! "We" means voters. And if you want the downtrodden angle on it, you might reflect on the socio-economic groupings of those on death row in America. Mostly black and mostly dirt poor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
help_shiny Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 "We" means voters. And if you want the downtrodden angle on it, you might reflect on the socio-economic groupings of those on death row in America. Mostly black and mostly dirt poor. mostly murderers too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 mostly murderers too Convicted murderers can't vote or stand for election. They are specifically banned from being serious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 It's absolute toss bringing race into this. Black criminals are burning black people out of their homes and jobs and it looks like a lot of white criminals are joining the party. They need smashing up on an equal basis. As if any of them have a social agenda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 It's absolute toss bringing race into this. Black criminals are burning black people out of their homes and jobs and it looks like a lot of white criminals are joining the party. They need smashing up on an equal basis. As if any of them have a social agenda. Are you not slightly uncomfortable about the fact that in the US, the ultimate punishment seems to be reserved for the poorest? It's got a lot to do with race in America. It has absolutely nothing to do with the uprising in London. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 Lots of poor americans who aren't on death row. I regret that the drug prohibition which sends a lot of americans down that path but i dont think it a matter of racism in the criminal justice system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 I'm with Silent Bob on this one. The American justice system is horiffically racist from the studies I've read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.