If people were 100% known guilty I wouldn't care what happened to them. However I knew a guy who spent 20 years in prison for a murder he was eventually cleared of (via DNA and confession). So I'm not a big CP person.
I had a grandfather who thought the usual modes of execution weren't severe enough. He thought steamrolling might be more effective lol
Last edited by Isoverity : 24-04-2015 at 03:30 PM.
Where a case of murder is absolutely proven I cannot accept that a prison sentence of a "mere" 15-20 years is an adequate punishment. Think of the victim's family, knowing that he or she will be out again enjoying the rest of their life while the murdered person won't. To take another person's life is unforgivable, and to walk away free with your own life intact is equally unforgivable ...
Tony (though I wouldn't enjoy pressing the button/pulling the lever/or squeezing the trigger when it came to it. But it would be justified.)
How can a State say that murder is wrong and unforgivable and then go and do exactly the same thing? That's not justified.
Also, I don't buy into the "victim/victim's family" argument, because with any crime (rape being the obvious example, but even things like assault or burglary) the victim has to live with the effects of that crime for the rest of their lives, as well as the family of the victim. Surely it is worse for someone alive to have a life destroyed, than a life ended with no further pain/hurt to live through? At least in my mind having to live through it is worse.
partly because I don't believe in an afterlife or anything and I believe anything you do in this life you should make up for it in this life, also there have just been too many cases over the years were people have been fund innocent after spending years and years in prison, you can recover from an ordeal like that with the right support but you cant recover from being executed.
Also in the UK if we hadn't abolished the death penalty then there would hve been a lot of innocent people who would have been executed over the years, the Birmingham six and the Guildford four for example, plus the execution of them would have only made martyrs of them and been a propaganda victory for the IRA, then we have cases like Angela Cannings and all those mothers who were wrongfully jailed for killing their children, they would have been executed for sure.
People are always saying "oh well if they are 100% sure then yes the death penalty" the courts were 100% certain they had the right people in those cases I just mentioned and look how that turned out, it would have been much much worse if they had been executed.
Nor, Foxtrot Oscar, is taking another person's life part of a civilised society. Why should a murderer continue with their own life when their victim's has been wiped out by them?
Personally, I believe they should stay in jail until they die ..
Not even just hail actually, but death row .. Let them live in anticipation they that could be called up for their death any day now.
But equally, as bad as it sounds but the convict also has a family.. Who may all be the sweetest most innocent people ever.
I don't believe in a life for a life .. I believe in a life for a life long sentence, absolutely .. I just don't believe in capital punishment.
I don't suppose I could claim to be 'for' capital punishment but I do believe that there are instances where it would be more appropriate. The concept of life meaning life is great and I don't think anyone would argue against it. However, our prisons are over run as it is. It is just not practical to keep a disturbingly large number of people in prison indefinitely.
There is a genuine concern about our justice system getting it wrong, and for this reason alone I don't think capital punishment should be a mainstream answer, it is not as simple to say murder=electric chair (or whatever format is chosen), circumstances and the extent of the quality of evidence- DNA evidence for example. I don't like to say that there are different 'levels' of murder because murder is wrong no matter what, but in cases like the moors murderers, Soham murderers etc I DO think capital punishment is more appropriate than prison. Think about how much it has cost to the tax payer to keep these people in prison- with no hope of getting out.
In terms of the convicts family, isn't it 'easier' to have them killed quickly rather than a lifetime of prison visits. Especially when the convict is beaten but other inmates or makes attempts on their own life? Surely living under the constant worry of the 'call' is worse for the innocent family than having to deal with a single (horrific) event?
I also think that people who sexually abuse/rape should be made infertile as part of their punishment. One of the most consistent effects of the victim of these crimes is problems in forming relationships (particularly those sexual in nature). The victim has to live with the consequence forever- why should the perpetrator serve a prison sentence (often around 5 years) and move on with their lives uninhibited.
Think about how much it has cost to the tax payer to keep these people in prison- with no hope of getting out.
I don't have all the figures to hand, but if I remember correctly, in the US it is more cost-effective to keep someone in jail for life than to put them to death. Death penalty appeals are incredibly expensive and long-winded, and there are often multiple of them.
This is a highly distasteful subject. But where the guilt of a murderer is absolutely beyond doubt (as for example in the case of the murderers of Lee Rigby) then I fail to see why the State should spend millions in detaining them for the rest of their lives - though I'm not for a moment saying that they should be executed for the sake of mere economy! It may be that those particular lunatics might welcome execution but in any case why should we all have to pay huge sums for their incarceration for years and years to come. The victim's family have to live with it while the murderers still live ... fair?
first off im in the USA so its legal here in some states..
my opinion is if they are convicted and been proven they are guilty without a doubt ill pull the switch,lever,trigger, inject the needle.... depending on what it is if it was a gruesome savage murder and the person suffered greatly then the criminal should have the same atrocities done onto them. if they were a rapist then i agree with the "pear" or
"wedge" which were medieval inquisition method i wont desribe them here but i caution you if you look them up they are graphic..
This is a highly distasteful subject. But where the guilt of a murderer is absolutely beyond doubt (as for example in the case of the murderers of Lee Rigby) then I fail to see why the State should spend millions in detaining them for the rest of their lives - though I'm not for a moment saying that they should be executed for the sake of mere economy! It may be that those particular lunatics might welcome execution but in any case why should we all have to pay huge sums for their incarceration for years and years to come. The victim's family have to live with it while the murderers still live ... fair?
Tony.
I'm inclined to agree. I disagree with widespread use of the death penalty partially because of the high number of wrongful convictions but for those who are most dangerous - terrorists and serial killers - who's guilt is 100% certain then I think it should be an option.
I also think that for some, the current imprisonment - often in secure hospitals - is supposed to be so horrific we can hardly suggest that it's a kindness. Ian Brady for example is being fed through an NG tube and requesting transfer to a mainstream prison so he no longer 'suffers' to the extent he is while in hospital. Many whole-life prisoners go on hunger strike, self harm, or make suicide attempts. We can hardly suggest that life imprisonment is a kindness.
It doesn't matter where you come from; it matters where you go.
No-one gets remembered for the things they didn't do.
We won't all be here this time next year,
so while you can take a picture of us.
We're definitely going to hell,
but we'll have all the best stories to tell.
This is a highly distasteful subject. But where the guilt of a murderer is absolutely beyond doubt (as for example in the case of the murderers of Lee Rigby) then I fail to see why the State should spend millions in detaining them for the rest of their lives - though I'm not for a moment saying that they should be executed for the sake of mere economy! It may be that those particular lunatics might welcome execution but in any case why should we all have to pay huge sums for their incarceration for years and years to come. The victim's family have to live with it while the murderers still live ... fair?
Tony.
Multiple studies (look online) show that the death penalty is much more expensive than a life in jail. You can't really compare the two as simply as that, but the costs mainly come from the actual trial costs. A capital trial is many times more expensive than a non-capital, for the fact that it is normally longer and more complex. Then you have the lawyers, both of which will be paid for by the State in the form of prosecutors and Legal Aid. Plus the lengthy and expensive appeals. Then, what if it goes wrong, and it does go wrong? That is even more expense!
Looking at it from a purely economical stand point, it is cheaper to keep someone alive.
As to your last sentence regarding the victim's family. What about crimes such as rape, assault or even burglary which can have a devastating, life-ending (if not biological, mental) effect on the victim. They can be breathing, but they certainly aren't living if they are too afraid to leave the house, for example. This one crime could have destroyed their entire life, forcing the break-up of families, the loss of a job and a house and all the luxuries than come with that. The victim's family may have to take them in and care for them, which then has a life sentence on them. Which is worse?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phoenix Of Destiny
my opinion is if they are convicted and been proven they are guilty without a doubt ill pull the switch,lever,trigger, inject the needle.... depending on what it is if it was a gruesome savage murder and the person suffered greatly then the criminal should have the same atrocities done onto them.
What makes you different to the original criminal? Simply because the State has sanctioned a criminal action? If the law is the law it should be applied universally, without a State, or a person acting on behalf of the State being able to commit the exact same crime with no penalty.
Arguably all persons convicted are done so "without doubt", as if there is any doubt they should not be found guilty in the first place.
I'll also ask you the same question I asked above, are you going to treat all "gruesome" crimes in the same manner? Many people suffer greatly on a day-to-day basis because of a crime that was committed against them, yet they are still breathing. It is simply impossible to give a criminal a sentence that reflects the suffering of the victim.
A question to all participants in this thread: what do you desire from the criminal justice system where you live?
Ideally a balance of retribution and rehabilitation. It should not be more beneficial for someone to be a career criminal or to choose to spend their life in jail, but that would require a much wider reform of policing, as well as social welfare and such. It's also quite idealistic!
The "Bali 9" were executed this morning in Indonesia. Of the two Australians, both had rehabilitated in the ten years they were in jail. One got an arts degree and taught English to other inmates, the other became a Pastor and was known as the gentle giant for comforting others. Some say you do the crime and you do the time, that they knew this was the punishment for drug trafficking in Indonesia.
But it's been hard to sleep tonight knowing it was happening.
Same, really, but I'd frame it as deterrent and rehabilitation. The concept of retribution really confuses me.
I'd say it's a bit of all three. For there to be a deterrent there must be some form of punishment, other than the "lack of freedom", which for some is actually more freedom than they would get in normal life. However, I am concerned with institutionalising people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snow White.
Some say you do the crime and you do the time, that they knew this was the punishment for drug trafficking in Indonesia.
I'd agree with that, to be honest. Not the death sentence in general, but if a country has such a law, or similar even, then we should respect that. The international outcry has come from there being international citizens involved, whereas normally we don't bat an eyelid at the justice systems of other countries.
Similarly, a British drug mule caught and convicted in Peru is being brought back to the UK to serve the rest of her sentence. Why should the British tax payer fund this? She should serve her time in Peru, where the crime was committed. That the conditions aren't very good are the concern of the Peruvian authorities, not the British establishment.
I'll bet that potential drug traffickers thinking of operating in Indonesia will now think long and hard - and all but the most foolish will be deterred.
As for our own murderers in UK, it may be that capital punishment wouldn't necessarily have deterred them. But in say 20-odd years time would you want Lee Rigby's killers living next door to you on their release, particularly if you had a son or daughter in the armed forces? The problem of whether or not they'll ever be fit for release would have been solved effectively if they'd been hanged - and in my book they deserved it ...
