FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

The death penalty

Jump to newest
 

By *illwill69u OP   Man
over a year ago

moston

From another thread, for discussion. LoL

I have lots of tin hats for sale!

"what manifesto was it in that fuel duty was going to be linked to a so called FUEL TAX ESCALATOR , and fuel duty would go up a lot more than inflation ?

cos i never saw it in any manifesto

not that it has made the slightest difference as the oil is being pumped as fast , if not faster than ever

so if it is IN the manifesto it doesnt mean they will carry it through , and if its not in the manifesto they will do it anyway / whatever they feel like that is

and you think i should take part in that system

give me a break "

No party of government, or opposition party, can possibly include every single law and resolution that it intends to make in a single manifesto. Often, new laws are reactionary and address a specific occurence that has taken place - for those laws it would be impossible to predict that they would be neccessary.

The issue of capital punishment has been debated endlessly ever since it was abolished. You do remember why it was abolished don't you? Innocent men & women were executed and politician's know that the public are given to knee-jerk responses to individual acts of brutality - like the Bulger case, for example. It is that public anger that MPs seek to difuse by preventing the public demanding that most harshest of penal systems - capital punishment. I fully support MPs who have steadfastly refused to reintroduce hanging regardless of public outcry.

You analogy of sausage & mash doesn't stack up either. If you continually receive such shoddy service you have more than the one option you listed available to you. You can open your own restaurant and serve the public what you think they deserve - but I'd bet my life you'd revert back to sausage & mash at some point.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69u OP   Man
over a year ago

moston

To kick this off I will point out that since the abolition of the death penalty the conviction for murder rate in this country has climbed from about 400 a year to near 1000.

This figure does not include those who kick/starve/stab or other ways kill people but get the reduced charge of manslaughter because “they didn’t mean it” honest gov

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69u OP   Man
over a year ago

moston

For years I was anti the death penalty, but I have come to the conclusion that the only way to reduce violence in our society is to string up the murderers.

So that all those who are willing to take life, or endanger life in order to avoid arrest know that if they kill they will be put to death for their crime.

Opinions anyone?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

the death penalty would be great idea if you can trust the justice system to get it right every time, but not sure i have that much faith in it myself

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

hmmm in certian cases where the guilt is def established id say yeah a rope is the thing , huntly for example , yorkshire ripper etc etc these people id hang and sleep soundly at night , harold shipman you know the type i mean .

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"hmmm in certian cases where the guilt is def established id say yeah a rope is the thing , huntly for example , yorkshire ripper etc etc these people id hang and sleep soundly at night , harold shipman you know the type i mean ."

but how can you say for sure they are guilty what happens if in a few years time some new evidance turns up that clears there name?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *zMaleMan
over a year ago

penzance

I am not in favour of the death penalty, because there are so many cases of wrongful convictions and once the person is executed no matter how many apologies or pardons are made, they can not be brought back.

Having said that, I do feel like the majority of people outrage and disgust when child killers are convicted and the initial thought is to string them up.

A life term sentence that really meant they spent the rest of there lives locked away is far more just, as they can argue there innocence til they die and if it is found that a wrongful conviction has been made then a pardon can be given.

IMHO

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"For years I was anti the death penalty, but I have come to the conclusion that the only way to reduce violence in our society is to string up the murderers.

So that all those who are willing to take life, or endanger life in order to avoid arrest know that if they kill they will be put to death for their crime.

Opinions anyone?

"

It is such an interesting thread and requires so much attention to detail, in terms of the crime itself, proof of guilt and the ethical issues associated with the conviction and execution. Besides there are the considerations of the needs of society to be protected from the invidual and whether or not death penalty would be the best solution.

I (female) tend to shy away a bit from this discussion, for one the history of my home country has influenced my thinking a lot and I c as a result could never be in favour of death penalty for any reason, however I do understand that people may consider it as a valid option.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iamondsmiles.Woman
over a year ago

little house on the praire

I would prefer them to torture certain people than bring back the death penalty. My heart broke over that baby peter and the little girl in birmingham who was starved to death and other such cases. Giving them one injection to end their life quickly and painlessly doesnt sit well with me. I want them to suffer really suffer and i would gladly do it

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69u OP   Man
over a year ago

moston


"the death penalty would be great idea if you can trust the justice system to get it right every time, but not sure i have that much faith in it myself"

Fair point, but does that supply enough justification for not having a death penalty? Remember that not having a death penalty sentences something in excess of 600 innocent people to death by criminals every year. Also that convicting and hanging innocent people was extremely rare and that with the advent of DNA evidence and profiling plus the advances in CCTV and forensic science that it is now a lot easier to be sure that the correct person is convicted for any offence.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"the death penalty would be great idea if you can trust the justice system to get it right every time, but not sure i have that much faith in it myself

Fair point, but does that supply enough justification for not having a death penalty? Remember that not having a death penalty sentences something in excess of 600 innocent people to death by criminals every year. Also that convicting and hanging innocent people was extremely rare and that with the advent of DNA evidence and profiling plus the advances in CCTV and forensic science that it is now a lot easier to be sure that the correct person is convicted for any offence."

I would like to add this for consideration : Is the death penalty really the most severe punishment? For me the prosepct of being locked up indefinitely (and I mean indefinitely) is possibly a far worse concept.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"the death penalty would be great idea if you can trust the justice system to get it right every time, but not sure i have that much faith in it myself

Fair point, but does that supply enough justification for not having a death penalty? Remember that not having a death penalty sentences something in excess of 600 innocent people to death by criminals every year. Also that convicting and hanging innocent people was extremely rare and that with the advent of DNA evidence and profiling plus the advances in CCTV and forensic science that it is now a lot easier to be sure that the correct person is convicted for any offence."

I understand your point and as i said before im in favour of the death penalty but it has to be fool proof.

And would having it stop those 600 being killed?

it hasnt worked in the usa as a deterent

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Trust the justice system ? That is a laugh.

How can you trust a system that fines a woman 1000 quid for selling a goldfish to a 12yr old, and tags her, but locks a lad up for only 5 years (for manslaughter) after stabbing a guy through the heart in a fight - as has happened not far from where we live ?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *INKKKYMan
over a year ago

LIVERPOOL/ WIRRAL

aanda69 you have hit the nail rite on the head, yes there are many 'murderers' who deserve to die, i.e child killers,but to trust our so called 'justice system' would be foolish,there incompetent and or corrupt!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I also should point out that im in favour of the death penalty not for revenge but to stop the state paying to keep someone in prison for years at great expence

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *zMaleMan
over a year ago

penzance

Good point well presented. But, if you were the executioner or the foreman of the jury that sent a man/woman to his death and it later transpired that he was innocent, how would you feel?

One innocent death is one too many.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"hmmm in certian cases where the guilt is def established id say yeah a rope is the thing , huntly for example , yorkshire ripper etc etc these people id hang and sleep soundly at night , harold shipman you know the type i mean ."

too true.murder,i mean execute those who are found definitely guilty.like the birmingham 6 guilford 4 (this is not a football score)if we were harder on criminals who are caught.severely restrict early release.there would be far less crime on the streets.i mean,getting out early for good behavior.dont make me laugh.that means if we lock you up for battering a little old lady for example.and you dont attack or fight with those poor rapists and murderera and paedofiles,you can go home early.what a joke.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Good point well presented. But, if you were the executioner or the foreman of the jury that sent a man/woman to his death and it later transpired that he was innocent, how would you feel?

One innocent death is one too many."

That is kind of how I feel really

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *b430Man
over a year ago

Tayside


"the death penalty would be great idea if you can trust the justice system to get it right every time, but not sure i have that much faith in it myself

Fair point, but does that supply enough justification for not having a death penalty? Remember that not having a death penalty sentences something in excess of 600 innocent people to death by criminals every year. Also that convicting and hanging innocent people was extremely rare and that with the advent of DNA evidence and profiling plus the advances in CCTV and forensic science that it is now a lot easier to be sure that the correct person is convicted for any offence."

That is a failed argument that having the death penalty in place would stop murderers being murderers.

It might stop some but I doubt very much the 600 plus you quoted would come down that much, if it is a true figure in the first place.

I don't think being caught and sent to prison is the first thing on a murderers mind when they are killing someone!

So no, bringing back hanging wouldn't be a good idea for all the reasons already given above.

Just my thoughts!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

I'll give you the name of three people..... and you tell me what they all have in common...

Timothy Evans

Mahmood Hussein Mattan

Derek Bentley

all given the death penalty in the uk...

all executed....

all then Pardoned posthumously when evidence of wrongful conviction emerged...

that could have been the guildford four... that could have been the birmingham six, that could have been various other people that have been wrongly convicted in a court of law....

you try telling there families "oops... we got it wrong...my bad!!!"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

i googled innocent people executed on death row.it is scary.it is disgusting.it is WRONG.and almost entirely black or ethnic poor people with no access to expensive lawyers.i remember the last guy executed by governor george bush before he took up the presidency was a mentally handicapted man.

Answer - Chosen by Voters

Only five percent. 95% of people put to death are actually guilty. If that's not good enough for you, then you are too soft on crime.

Source(s):

Columbia Univeristy study

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69u OP   Man
over a year ago

moston


"hmmm in certian cases where the guilt is def established id say yeah a rope is the thing , huntly for example , yorkshire ripper etc etc these people id hang and sleep soundly at night , harold shipman you know the type i mean .

too true.murder,i mean execute those who are found definitely guilty.like the birmingham 6 guilford 4 (this is not a football score)if we were harder on criminals who are caught.severely restrict early release.there would be far less crime on the streets.i mean,getting out early for good behavior.dont make me laugh.that means if we lock you up for battering a little old lady for example.and you dont attack or fight with those poor rapists and murderera and paedofiles,you can go home early.what a joke."

I hope your Birmingham 6, Guildford 4 comments were sarcasm. I also remember Lord Denning (Master of the Rolls) saying that if they had been hanged there would have been no endless appeals.

I for one have an answer for that, anyone (like the police and forensic scientist who suppressed and forged evidence in that case) who perverts the course of justice and as a result causes an innocent to be executed should be put to death for their crime.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uton_coupleCouple
over a year ago

luton


"I'll give you the name of three people..... and you tell me what they all have in common...

Timothy Evans

Mahmood Hussein Mattan

Derek Bentley

all given the death penalty in the uk...

all executed....

all then Pardoned posthumously when evidence of wrongful conviction emerged...

that could have been the guildford four... that could have been the birmingham six, that could have been various other people that have been wrongly convicted in a court of law....

you try telling there families "oops... we got it wrong...my bad!!!""

yes that is why you CAN NOT have a death penalty

even in cases where there are ten people who swear blind they saw a person shoot someone , and the dna proves they did it , later on it can happen that those ten witnesses were lying , and the dna was mixed up in the lab

you just can never be absolutely sure

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

yes my quotes were sarcasm.i dont believe in executing anyone.i mean,where would you draw the line ? only execute child killers.oh and paedofiles.thats it.oh and anyone who kills police or soldiers carrying out their duties.thats it.oh oh and mass murderers (what would be the cut off ?)but thats it.oh oh and terrorists,oh and.......where do you draw the line ?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69u OP   Man
over a year ago

moston


"

i googled innocent people executed on death row.it is scary.it is disgusting.it is WRONG.and almost entirely black or ethnic poor people with no access to expensive lawyers.i remember the last guy executed by governor george bush before he took up the presidency was a mentally handicapted man.

Answer - Chosen by Voters

Only five percent. 95% of people put to death are actually guilty. If that's not good enough for you, then you are too soft on crime.

Source(s):

Columbia Univeristy study

"

That’s in the USA, not noted for their fair legal system!

Now Google HO (Home Office) conviction figures and HO (prison service) sentencing (tariff figures) compare them.

Maybe plot them on a graph, notice how on the abolition of the death penalty murders jumped, then as we have reduced the relative number of those charged with murder and the term served how the figures unlawful killing figures rise.

You may also like to notice that the average sentence for unlawful killing is now SIX years!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I'll give you the name of three people..... and you tell me what they all have in common...

Timothy Evans

Mahmood Hussein Mattan

Derek Bentley

all given the death penalty in the uk...

all executed....

all then Pardoned posthumously when evidence of wrongful conviction emerged...

that could have been the guildford four... that could have been the birmingham six, that could have been various other people that have been wrongly convicted in a court of law....

you try telling there families "oops... we got it wrong...my bad!!!""

Whilst we agree that the above wrong convictions/sentences should not have happened its a sadly old arguement that gets used when this debate comes up. With the likes of DNA and better policing then the likely hood of a wrongfull conviction are we would imagine next to none. Also given the courts unease at passing the death sentence then it would only be passed if it were 100% proven that the person commited the offence.

On another note if YOU were the victim how would YOU want the offender delt with? Life in jail or to join you six feet under?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"You may also like to notice that the average sentence for unlawful killing is now SIX years!"

thats the problem.NOT the abolition of the death penalty.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *aucy3Couple
over a year ago

glasgow

as has been said before,to many innocent people would now be dead.in law guilty is guilty.you dont get definatly guilty,or maybe guilty.as someone above said,to take a chance with one innocent life,its not worth the risk.make the sentences longer,and make them serve thier full terms.a pardon for a dead person,doesnt quite work.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead


"

That’s in the USA, not noted for their fair legal system!

Now Google HO (Home Office) conviction figures and HO (prison service) sentencing (tariff figures) compare them.

Maybe plot them on a graph, notice how on the abolition of the death penalty murders jumped, then as we have reduced the relative number of those charged with murder and the term served how the figures unlawful killing figures rise.

You may also like to notice that the average sentence for unlawful killing is now SIX years!

"

still not listening are you.... so lets give you a few more names...

Barry George

Stephen Downing

Stefan Kiszko

Micheal Shirley

Sean Hodgson

I chose those five for a reason... all were convicted of the murder of women or children.....

so would you have given the death penality to those five..... because they were all found innocent because of evidence years later!!!!

what would you have said to those five families had you killed there innocent sons????

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

heres something else to think about.imagine we have capital punishment back.say a gang rob a bank,couple of people get shot and killed.bank gets surrounded by armed police.gang know they have 2 options.

1; shoot their way out,more people (including police and hostages)will die,but they MIGHT GO FREE.

2;surrender,knowing they will obviously be found guilty,so will deffinitely be executed.

what would they do ,do you think ?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

What about the victims of murder????????

How many do you want us to start naming.A dam sight more that the innocents quoted on here thats for sure.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

listen. EVERY person murdered is a trajedy.for the victim and their family.but for gods sake.how many innocent people executed by the government,in YOUR name,would balance it out.and make no mistake,innocent people WOULD be executed.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead


"What about the victims of murder????????

How many do you want us to start naming.A dam sight more that the innocents quoted on here thats for sure."

so the innocent are the "collateral damage" in your eyes then..... I'm sorry thats cold!!!

if someone does it then i am all for life meaning life.... but execution innocent people makes us no better in my eyes.....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I'll give you the name of three people..... and you tell me what they all have in common...

Timothy Evans

Mahmood Hussein Mattan

Derek Bentley

all given the death penalty in the uk...

all executed....

all then Pardoned posthumously when evidence of wrongful conviction emerged...

that could have been the guildford four... that could have been the birmingham six, that could have been various other people that have been wrongly convicted in a court of law....

you try telling there families "oops... we got it wrong...my bad!!!"

yes that is why you CAN NOT have a death penalty

even in cases where there are ten people who swear blind they saw a person shoot someone , and the dna proves they did it , later on it can happen that those ten witnesses were lying , and the dna was mixed up in the lab

you just can never be absolutely sure "

No, we agree there is no such thing as absolute certainty

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"What about the victims of murder????????

How many do you want us to start naming.A dam sight more that the innocents quoted on here thats for sure.

so the innocent are the "collateral damage" in your eyes then..... I'm sorry thats cold!!!

if someone does it then i am all for life meaning life.... but execution innocent people makes us no better in my eyes..... "

All in favour of the death penalty in big way as people have quoted on here for the likes of sutcliffe,brady,huntly ect as well as any person who commits murder. this debate will contiue because we dont have the opition of life without parole. we have full life sentences but this is only handed out in extreme cases and not as standard.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

ahh tricky one this!!!

in favour as a knee jerk reaction yes ian huntly rose and fred west myra hindley and him baby p killers sarah payne any child killer any killer ? and im thinkin yes but can it be proven beyond doubt?

science has came far with dna etc but can the police be trusted not to fix evidence to try and get a conviction??

where do you draw line? start with killers then whos next??

in some cases im a full payin member of hang them high but the other side says not sure? xx

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *mcouple1Couple
over a year ago

nr warrington

bolger killers ?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead


"What about the victims of murder????????

How many do you want us to start naming.A dam sight more that the innocents quoted on here thats for sure.

so the innocent are the "collateral damage" in your eyes then..... I'm sorry thats cold!!!

if someone does it then i am all for life meaning life.... but execution innocent people makes us no better in my eyes.....

All in favour of the death penalty in big way as people have quoted on here for the likes of sutcliffe,brady,huntly ect as well as any person who commits murder. this debate will contiue because we dont have the opition of life without parole. we have full life sentences but this is only handed out in extreme cases and not as standard."

so in which case where do you draw the line.... baby killers? child killers? men who kill women? killers of policemen or army personnel..... killers of just one person... or do they have to have killed multiple people....

just wondering... because in all of those i can name people who would have been killed but would have been innocent!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"What about the victims of murder????????

How many do you want us to start naming.A dam sight more that the innocents quoted on here thats for sure.

so the innocent are the "collateral damage" in your eyes then..... I'm sorry thats cold!!!

if someone does it then i am all for life meaning life.... but execution innocent people makes us no better in my eyes.....

All in favour of the death penalty in big way as people have quoted on here for the likes of sutcliffe,brady,huntly ect as well as any person who commits murder. this debate will contiue because we dont have the opition of life without parole. we have full life sentences but this is only handed out in extreme cases and not as standard.

so in which case where do you draw the line.... baby killers? child killers? men who kill women? killers of policemen or army personnel..... killers of just one person... or do they have to have killed multiple people....

just wondering... because in all of those i can name people who would have been killed but would have been innocent!"

murder is murder.you kill you die.simple.

isnt my life as a victim worth more than theirs?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead


"

murder is murder.you kill you die.simple.

isnt my life as a victim worth more than theirs?"

fine... but what about those that are innocent that you kill along the way!

still simple?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

dont forget manslaughter.do we murder,sorry execute,drink drivers who kill ? if not why not ? what about drug dealers ? are they not indirect killers ? gets complicated doesnt it ?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

murder is murder.you kill you die.simple.

isnt my life as a victim worth more than theirs?

fine... but what about those that are innocent that you kill along the way!

still simple? "

very simple.YOU did the crime,no one else YOU did it. then YOU are the one to be executed.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

murder is murder.you kill you die.simple.

isnt my life as a victim worth more than theirs?

fine... but what about those that are innocent that you kill along the way!

still simple?

very simple.YOU did the crime,no one else YOU did it. then YOU are the one to be executed."

not at all simple.numerous cases where people found guilty later found innocent.read above posts before replying please.these people later found innocent would have been executed.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead


"

murder is murder.you kill you die.simple.

isnt my life as a victim worth more than theirs?

fine... but what about those that are innocent that you kill along the way!

still simple?

very simple.YOU did the crime,no one else YOU did it. then YOU are the one to be executed."

which takes us back nicely to all of those names that we read out earlier...

none of them did it... but were all convicted of a crime they didn't commit...

you would have had them killed off before there convictions would have been overturned

your conscience clear????

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
Forum Mod
over a year ago

I would not like to live with myself as an executioner if it was found that later on the person I had,hung,electrocuted or gave the lethal injection was in fact innocent

If it means that one innocent person is killed this way then its wrong to me

Thats not to say im a liberal softie either because im not but there have been too many cases of innocent people being executed to make the death penalty right

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69u OP   Man
over a year ago

moston

Sorry if this rambles.

I used to be firmly in the “rather 100 guilty go free than 1 innocent hang” camp. However over years I have watched with mounting horror how murderers go free when they plead we didn’t mean it, while petty criminals are targeted and receive ever harsher sentences.

Unfortunately I have come to the conclusion that this is because we have lost all perspective. I notice that no one has challenged my figures after I gave the sources but still less than 20 names have been put forward as justification why 600+ a year should die because the consequences of killing is not potential loss of your own life for the act.

I guess that the 20/30/40 or so who would have been hanged and then found innocent since 1968 are worth more than the thousands who have been killed because we as a society are unwilling to deal with violent killers.

As for where the line is drawn, for me it would be if you deliberately kill a person or kill a person while commissioning a crime.

So be it the deliberate act of murder, the stabbing in a fight or the car thief running down the owner of the car or the pedestrian in order to escape arrest, all would hang.

The example of the armed bank robbers I would answer with a question, how many bank robbers would use firearms if they know that the penalty for accidentally killing someone would be death?

At the moment we have the conservatives saying that they would change the law to make it harder for homeowners too be prosecuted for defending their property, even in cases that lead to deaths; we have laws and justice to protect ourselves from such a way of living. It is the courts that should determine life and death not the home owner, and it is our politicians who should step up and take the hard decision about capital punishment rather than abrogating their responsibility!

I will now say again that it is with regret and a heavy heart that I have reached the conclusion that we need the death penalty, like it or no.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hirefunguyMan
over a year ago

Moray & Glasgow

Strongly believe that a life term should mean just that with no chance of parole for being a good little con inside! And I would abolish the rights of these people whilst locked up, if they take a human life they do not deserve the basic human rights to be bestowed upon them. If they want to eat, make them do something to earn it. Something that is for the good of the community that they deprived by taking a life. They should be made to work a 14 hour day, with time for a cold salt water shower before spending 9 hours locked down with no luxuries like telly's and pool tables.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Sorry if this rambles.

I used to be firmly in the “rather 100 guilty go free than 1 innocent hang” camp. However over years I have watched with mounting horror how murderers go free when they plead we didn’t mean it, while petty criminals are targeted and receive ever harsher sentences.

Unfortunately I have come to the conclusion that this is because we have lost all perspective. I notice that no one has challenged my figures after I gave the sources but still less than 20 names have been put forward as justification why 600+ a year should die because the consequences of killing is not potential loss of your own life for the act.

I guess that the 20/30/40 or so who would have been hanged and then found innocent since 1968 are worth more than the thousands who have been killed because we as a society are unwilling to deal with violent killers.

As for where the line is drawn, for me it would be if you deliberately kill a person or kill a person while commissioning a crime.

So be it the deliberate act of murder, the stabbing in a fight or the car thief running down the owner of the car or the pedestrian in order to escape arrest, all would hang.

The example of the armed bank robbers I would answer with a question, how many bank robbers would use firearms if they know that the penalty for accidentally killing someone would be death?

At the moment we have the conservatives saying that they would change the law to make it harder for homeowners too be prosecuted for defending their property, even in cases that lead to deaths; we have laws and justice to protect ourselves from such a way of living. It is the courts that should determine life and death not the home owner, and it is our politicians who should step up and take the hard decision about capital punishment rather than abrogating their responsibility!

I will now say again that it is with regret and a heavy heart that I have reached the conclusion that we need the death penalty, like it or no.

"

just home OWNERS?? how about the rest who dont own their home? i rent mine does that give me less rights if someone breaks in?? x

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay


"Sorry if this rambles.

I used to be firmly in the “rather 100 guilty go free than 1 innocent hang” camp. However over years I have watched with mounting horror how murderers go free when they plead we didn’t mean it, while petty criminals are targeted and receive ever harsher sentences.

Unfortunately I have come to the conclusion that this is because we have lost all perspective. I notice that no one has challenged my figures after I gave the sources but still less than 20 names have been put forward as justification why 600+ a year should die because the consequences of killing is not potential loss of your own life for the act.

I guess that the 20/30/40 or so who would have been hanged and then found innocent since 1968 are worth more than the thousands who have been killed because we as a society are unwilling to deal with violent killers.

As for where the line is drawn, for me it would be if you deliberately kill a person or kill a person while commissioning a crime.

So be it the deliberate act of murder, the stabbing in a fight or the car thief running down the owner of the car or the pedestrian in order to escape arrest, all would hang.

The example of the armed bank robbers I would answer with a question, how many bank robbers would use firearms if they know that the penalty for accidentally killing someone would be death?

At the moment we have the conservatives saying that they would change the law to make it harder for homeowners too be prosecuted for defending their property, even in cases that lead to deaths; we have laws and justice to protect ourselves from such a way of living. It is the courts that should determine life and death not the home owner, and it is our politicians who should step up and take the hard decision about capital punishment rather than abrogating their responsibility!

I will now say again that it is with regret and a heavy heart that I have reached the conclusion that we need the death penalty, like it or no.

just home OWNERS?? how about the rest who dont own their home? i rent mine does that give me less rights if someone breaks in?? x"

Yes.....you are only entitled to batter them to the brink of death and not completely flat line them if you are renting....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69u OP   Man
over a year ago

moston

Sorry home/house/flat/tent holders

Please stop picking and deal with the substantive issue

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay


"Sorry home/house/flat/tent holders

Please stop picking and deal with the substantive issue

"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Sorry home/house/flat/tent holders

Please stop picking and deal with the substantive issue

"

i believe picking is necessary to see what is acceptable and what is not?

or are you right and no one else is and there should be no examination of detail??

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay


"Sorry home/house/flat/tent holders

Please stop picking and deal with the substantive issue

i believe picking is necessary to see what is acceptable and what is not?

or are you right and no one else is and there should be no examination of detail?? "

Stand by your bed and know your place woman!!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69u OP   Man
over a year ago

moston


"Sorry home/house/flat/tent holders

Please stop picking and deal with the substantive issue

"

not you jane! your aanswer to the same point was funny!

Well it made me smile

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay


"Sorry home/house/flat/tent holders

Please stop picking and deal with the substantive issue

not you jane! your aanswer to the same point was funny!

Well it made me smile"

Don't encourage me.....it upsets the natives

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Sorry home/house/flat/tent holders

Please stop picking and deal with the substantive issue

i believe picking is necessary to see what is acceptable and what is not?

or are you right and no one else is and there should be no examination of detail??

Stand by your bed and know your place woman!!"

yeah how dare i confuse matters i do apologise for havin an opinion i shall go and wash the dishes then have an evening reading womans own!! xx xx

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I guess that the 20/30/40 or so who would have been hanged and then found innocent since 1968 are worth more than the thousands who have been killed because we as a society are unwilling to deal with violent killers."

i really cant believe this.i really cant.and as to the point,"how many bank robbers would use guns if death penalty would result in them being executed",now are you sitting down,cause i agree with you.....to a point.do you think there no bank robbers in the usa.armed bank robbers.because i assure you there are.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

This is a deep debate for a swingers site!

Take it from someone who knows about the law and being wrongfully accused, justice has no meaning.

The prosepect of prison, whilst terrifying to us, is a joke to many felons. We are too liberal and sensible to consider the death penalty, perhaps rightly so.

I would advise you to make your own justice.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
Forum Mod
over a year ago

If it was yout father that had been innocently executed as a murderer then maybe you would think differently?

Those that have been executed and later found innocent are as much victims themselves

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *aucy3Couple
over a year ago

glasgow


""I guess that the 20/30/40 or so who would have been hanged and then found innocent since 1968 are worth more than the thousands who have been killed because we as a society are unwilling to deal with violent killers."

i really cant believe this.i really cant.and as to the point,"how many bank robbers would use guns if death penalty would result in them being executed",now are you sitting down,cause i agree with you.....to a point.do you think there no bank robbers in the usa.armed bank robbers.because i assure you there are."
if thats you, or some member of your family being executed,who are innocent.would that be ok.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69u OP   Man
over a year ago

moston


"Sorry home/house/flat/tent holders

Please stop picking and deal with the substantive issue

i believe picking is necessary to see what is acceptable and what is not?

or are you right and no one else is and there should be no examination of detail?? "

At no point do I claim infallibility; however I do think that my argument is cogent and quite well thought out. Also I have said more than once that I have been forced to reluctantly change my mind from being anti the death penalty to pro.

I would have thought that this alone shows that I am open to change, however I do notice that most of those ranged against me and most on my side of this debate are passionate (emotional) about something that needs to be considered with cold dispassion.

Or at least that is my opinion.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69u OP   Man
over a year ago

moston


"Sorry home/house/flat/tent holders

Please stop picking and deal with the substantive issue

not you jane! your aanswer to the same point was funny!

Well it made me smile

Don't encourage me.....it upsets the natives"

so do i at times;)

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

its the one question that the people who advocate for the death penalty never answer... the innocent people who are wrongly convicted....

as I said... what do they say... "ooops, my bad!!!"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
Forum Mod
over a year ago


"its the one question that the people who advocate for the death penalty never answer... the innocent people who are wrongly convicted....

as I said... what do they say... "ooops, my bad!!!" "

As they pull the level that opens the trapdoor to end an innocent life by break someones neck

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *b430Man
over a year ago

Tayside


"Unfortunately I have come to the conclusion that this is because we have lost all perspective. I notice that no one has challenged my figures after I gave the sources but still less than 20 names have been put forward as justification why 600+ a year should die because the consequences of killing is not potential loss of your own life for the act."

Sorry but I am gonna pick here because it is a "substantive issue"

You just don't get that a murderer hasn't set out to get caught, they have set out to murder someone, so whatever the punishment is they don't think oh I best not do this because they might catch me and hang me, they think they are going to get away with it!

And my answers are "considered with cold dispassion" and not just emotional

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

Engin Raghip and Mark Braithwaite.....

Look these names up before you think that it is well worth hanging a few innocents in order to hang a few killers.

These two young men were not even in North London on the evening of the killing of PC Keith Blakelock at the Broadwater Farm riots.

The police beat a false confession out of a supposed witness, he was a 15 year old boy called Stephan Scott, he was autistic and dyslexic. He was so scared for his life in police cells he came up with the names of Raghip and Braithwaite as he was being beaten. When 15 year old Scott was released from police custody he went on to spend three weeks in hospital with various injuries including a fractured skull, a fractured eye socket and six broken fingers.

Engin Raghip and Mark Braithwaite spent Four years and Seven months in prison despite there being no real evidence against them, alibis taken from witnesses were hidden by the police just so they could get 'justice' for PC Blakelock....whatever the cost.

Incidentally Raghip got £80,000 in compensation for his wrongful imprisonment and Braithwaite turned his compensation down and went to live in Jamaica a totally broken man.

The Detective Inspector who falsified the evidence was found not guity of perjury despite the Judge proclaiming it a disgraceful verdict by the jury.

He retired from the force with a full pension and a clean record.

The two Detective Constables who beat 15 year old Stephan Scott whilst holding him in custody never faced a single disciplinary charge by the Met Police as they were acting under duress, they both later that year retired on a full pension because of stress.

Raghip and Braithwaite would be dead today if hanging were still allowed....despite not even being at the scene of the murder.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

i googled innocent people executed on death row.it is scary.it is disgusting.it is WRONG.and almost entirely black or ethnic poor people with no access to expensive lawyers.i remember the last guy executed by governor george bush before he took up the presidency was a mentally handicapted man.

Answer - Chosen by Voters

Only five percent. 95% of people put to death are actually guilty. If that's not good enough for you, then you are too soft on crime.

Source(s):

Columbia Univeristy study

"

Although an Ameerican study this would be my concern that ethnic minorities, poor and mentally ill people would be swinging by their necks while other sections of society buy their freedom or their status set them free.

As someone else has pointed out the sentences as they stand don't fit the crime. One case has always stood out for me, a Scottish soilder killed his wife and baby daughter. Sentence nothing as the judge deemed "he'd suffered enough"! Don't pay your council tax and you'll soon be carted off!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69u OP   Man
over a year ago

moston


"This is a deep debate for a swingers site!

Take it from someone who knows about the law and being wrongfully accused, justice has no meaning.

The prosepect of prison, whilst terrifying to us, is a joke to many felons. We are too liberal and sensible to consider the death penalty, perhaps rightly so.

I would advise you to make your own justice."

The justice system no matter how imperfect is there to save us from ourselves. A previous poster asked how any of us would feel if we were the executioner and we put to death an innocent person.

Now speaking as an ex member of our armed forces, I have to tell you killing is easy, living with it is not quite so easy, the forces spend a long time hardening men to the job and still it leaves a mark. We need the justice system to remove the need for hot tempered mob justice in the heat of the moment and individual guilt after the fact.

I notice that the USA keeps being quoted, however those doing so do not seem to understand that the USA is a violent lawless country that has more firearms in the general circulation than the population of the country. If you wish to make a comparison why not use pre and post death penalty abolition in this country? I doubt that they are any where near so favourable to the anti hanging lobby.

However if anyone can show me a real fault in my position I will rejoin the abolitionists.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
Forum Mod
over a year ago

Im would'nt attempt to make you change your mind just as I don't expect you to chnage mine,the debate has been going on since they abolished the death penalty here and will go on for years to come

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *i 1 Get 1 FreeCouple (MM)
over a year ago

birmingham

I agree with the DP but only in barbaric cases, crimes such as paedophiles / attacks on the elderly / multiple murders etc., etc.,

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

And i would gladly do it

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I agree with the DP but only in barbaric cases, crimes such as paedophiles / attacks on the elderly / multiple murders etc., etc., "

just to nit pick on one or two points of your argument.you say multiple murders.so if you kill one,thats ok,but kill two,we kill you.?attacks on the elderly.what is elderly ? 65 ? 70 ? lets say 65.attack a 64 year old we'll jail you.attack a 65 year old we'll kill you ? is this logical ? lastly,barbaric cases.who decides whats barbaric ? morality police ?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69u OP   Man
over a year ago

moston


"its the one question that the people who advocate for the death penalty never answer... the innocent people who are wrongly convicted....

as I said... what do they say... "ooops, my bad!!!" "

I thought I had, rightly or wrongly the figures show that the death penalty works to stop over 50% of potential murders, if you don’t believe me check the home office figures.

Now with all due respect to those who say what about the innocents wrongly executed by the state, I say no system will be perfect but if the police and prosecution know that if they deliberately fit up someone who is hanged all those who did the fitting up will also drop, there is a powerful incentive not to do the fitting in the first place. It is the same powerful incentive that will reduce the murder/unlawful killing rate back to nearer its 1967 level.

I would rather no innocent person was hanged but if it’s a choice between 1 or 2 innocents a year going to the gallows and an extra 600+ murders a year, I’ll live with the guilt of 1 or 2 wrongful executions.

Now that is cold I admit, but to condemn 600+ a year to being killed to save you from having to deal with 1 or 2 wrongful executions a year is colder and cowardly in my opinion.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *b430Man
over a year ago

Tayside


"This is a deep debate for a swingers site!

Take it from someone who knows about the law and being wrongfully accused, justice has no meaning.

The prosepect of prison, whilst terrifying to us, is a joke to many felons. We are too liberal and sensible to consider the death penalty, perhaps rightly so.

I would advise you to make your own justice.

The justice system no matter how imperfect is there to save us from ourselves. A previous poster asked how any of us would feel if we were the executioner and we put to death an innocent person.

Now speaking as an ex member of our armed forces, I have to tell you killing is easy, living with it is not quite so easy, the forces spend a long time hardening men to the job and still it leaves a mark. We need the justice system to remove the need for hot tempered mob justice in the heat of the moment and individual guilt after the fact.

I notice that the USA keeps being quoted, however those doing so do not seem to understand that the USA is a violent lawless country that has more firearms in the general circulation than the population of the country. If you wish to make a comparison why not use pre and post death penalty abolition in this country? I doubt that they are any where near so favourable to the anti hanging lobby.

However if anyone can show me a real fault in my position I will rejoin the abolitionists."

I just love your replies, the way you tell people how they should be answering the question - priceless

But to answer your point on people not understanding that America is a "violent lawless country" and has lots of firearms; you don't actually need to just use a gun to murder someone, any household kitchen knife, small pen-knife, a nail, a knitting needle, etc, etc can kill just the same as a gun in the wrong hands.

If the figure of an extra 600+ murders a year you quoted are correct then the UK looks like it is getting a wee bit violent and lawless too

I still wouldn't try to change yours or anyone elses view on this subject as everyone knows what they feel is right or wrong in their own mind.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"its the one question that the people who advocate for the death penalty never answer... the innocent people who are wrongly convicted....

as I said... what do they say... "ooops, my bad!!!"

I thought I had, rightly or wrongly the figures show that the death penalty works to stop over 50% of potential murders, if you don’t believe me check the home office figures.

Now with all due respect to those who say what about the innocents wrongly executed by the state, I say no system will be perfect but if the police and prosecution know that if they deliberately fit up someone who is hanged all those who did the fitting up will also drop, there is a powerful incentive not to do the fitting in the first place. It is the same powerful incentive that will reduce the murder/unlawful killing rate back to nearer its 1967 level.

I would rather no innocent person was hanged but if it’s a choice between 1 or 2 innocents a year going to the gallows and an extra 600+ murders a year, I’ll live with the guilt of 1 or 2 wrongful executions.

Now that is cold I admit, but to condemn 600+ a year to being killed to save you from having to deal with 1 or 2 wrongful executions a year is colder and cowardly in my opinion.

"Now that is cold I admit, but to condemn 600+ a year to being killed to save you from having to deal with 1 or 2 wrongful executions a year is colder and cowardly in my opinion"well thats a rather disingenuous argument i believe.a

"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69u OP   Man
over a year ago

moston


"Im would'nt attempt to make you change your mind just as I don't expect you to chnage mine,the debate has been going on since they abolished the death penalty here and will go on for years to come "

I don’t expect I could change your or anyone else’s mind, only you can change your mind.

However I would hope that you would be open-minded enough to listen to what I say then go and look at the figures, they are simple and stark, and then to objectively consider them and then maybe change your own mind as I changed mine.

Rather reminds me of a couple of lines of a song:

You can lead a horse to water

But a pencil must be lead mate

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *i 1 Get 1 FreeCouple (MM)
over a year ago

birmingham


"I agree with the DP but only in barbaric cases, crimes such as paedophiles / attacks on the elderly / multiple murders etc., etc.,

just to nit pick on one or two points of your argument.you say multiple murders.so if you kill one,thats ok"

Depends in the circumstances


"but kill two,we kill you.?"

The state doesn't kill anyone per se, it's punishment for the crime committed.


"attacks on the elderly.what is elderly ? 65 ? 70 ? lets say 65.attack a 64 year old we'll jail you.attack a 65 year old we'll kill you ? is this logical?"

We have an ageing population, anyone attacking someone over the age of 80 can never ever be justified.


"lastly,barbaric cases.who decides whats barbaric ? morality police ?"

Judges are appointed it's for them with their years of expertise to decide what is a "Barbaric" case.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
Forum Mod
over a year ago


"Im would'nt attempt to make you change your mind just as I don't expect you to chnage mine,the debate has been going on since they abolished the death penalty here and will go on for years to come

I don’t expect I could change your or anyone else’s mind, only you can change your mind.

However I would hope that you would be open-minded enough to listen to what I say then go and look at the figures, they are simple and stark, and then to objectively consider them and then maybe change your own mind as I changed mine.

Rather reminds me of a couple of lines of a song:

You can lead a horse to water

But a pencil must be lead mate

"

I know in my heart regardless of facts and figures that even the execution of one innocent person is'nt right ,therefore there must be other measures in place and yes I am open minded and mature enough to look at facts,still does'nt make it right though,so theres no need to quote lines of songs at me to make your point seem more valid amd mine less so

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69u OP   Man
over a year ago

moston

Will you repost your last jackelaine as it seems to have got cut off

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"but kill two,we kill you.?"

The state doesn't kill anyone per se, it's punishment for the crime committed.

oh come on.are you serious

"attacks on the elderly.what is elderly ? 65 ? 70 ? lets say 65.attack a 64 year old we'll jail you.attack a 65 year old we'll kill you ? is this logical?"

We have an ageing population, anyone attacking someone over the age of 80 can never ever be justified.

again.does that make aaan attack on a 79 year old less serious.there is no grey line.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *i 1 Get 1 FreeCouple (MM)
over a year ago

birmingham


"again.does that make aaan attack on a 79 year old less serious.there is no grey line."

Do we allow men to claim state pension at 64 because they're close to the legal age of retiring? no, do we allow children to have sex at 15 because they're close to the legal age of 16? there has to be a line drawn in the sand at some stage.

You can use whatever feasible excuse you can think of to stop the DP, for me, off with their heads, providing the crime warrants the punishment

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69u OP   Man
over a year ago

moston


"I know in my heart regardless of facts and figures that even the execution of one innocent person is'nt right ,therefore there must be other measures in place and yes I am open minded and mature enough to look at facts,still does'nt make it right though,so theres no need to quote lines of songs at me to make your point seem more valid amd mine less so "

You are right song line do not belong here and it was cheap of me, for that I am sorry.

However I have not said executing an innocent is right, I do believe I have said it is wrong too.

But the choice is 1 or 2 innocents a year in our name or 600+ by our refusal to admit that although very laudable our 40year experiment with no death penalty has failed, and we need the threat of hanging to control our violent criminal element. Again not a nice choice to have to make, but in refusing to make it we make a choice and must shoulder our part of the blame each time there is a cold ruthless killing.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

[Removed by poster at 05/04/10 22:33:55]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

Why?, it's not our decision to make, why should we take part of the blame?

You talk as if they are ever going to hold a referendum on it.....it's not our vote that will ever decide it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *b430Man
over a year ago

Tayside


"I know in my heart regardless of facts and figures that even the execution of one innocent person is'nt right ,therefore there must be other measures in place and yes I am open minded and mature enough to look at facts,still does'nt make it right though,so theres no need to quote lines of songs at me to make your point seem more valid amd mine less so

You are right song line do not belong here and it was cheap of me, for that I am sorry.

However I have not said executing an innocent is right, I do believe I have said it is wrong too.

But the choice is 1 or 2 innocents a year in our name or 600+ by our refusal to admit that although very laudable our 40year experiment with no death penalty has failed, and we need the threat of hanging to control our violent criminal element. Again not a nice choice to have to make, but in refusing to make it we make a choice and must shoulder our part of the blame each time there is a cold ruthless killing."

You totally miss the point with "1 or 2 innocents" is ok. The part "innocents" should jump out at you just the same as the "600+" you constantly quote!

We have made a choice in this country and that is that the Death Penalty is not there to be used now as a punishment or a deterant!

You have also never answered the point that a murderer doesn't set out to be caught, they set out to murder and believe they will get away with it so in most cases the punishment for what they are about to do never enters their heads.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead


"

I would rather no innocent person was hanged but if it’s a choice between 1 or 2 innocents a year going to the gallows and an extra 600+ murders a year, I’ll live with the guilt of 1 or 2 wrongful executions.

Now that is cold I admit, but to condemn 600+ a year to being killed to save you from having to deal with 1 or 2 wrongful executions a year is colder and cowardly in my opinion.

"

cool will, if that is what you believe... your wrongful execution first then! and I am assuming you've never murdered anyone...

after all your conscience is clear with one or two innocent people dying for what you are now calling "the greater good" and yes, they are rolled eyes....

I'm sorry.... its cold, and its sick beyond belief that someone would have that opinion.....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69u OP   Man
over a year ago

moston


"Why?, it's not our decision to make, why should we take part of the blame?

You talk as if they are ever going to hold a referendum on it.....it's not our vote that will ever decide it.

"

Our government only govern by consent, and if an overwhelming majority of us are in favour of anything it will be done. The fact that we as a society are split on this and other issues until there is an outrage and then can be split again after the first “knee-jerk reaction” by either playing on our soft-hearted nature or on “what if” details allows our “leader” to follow their own agendas no matter the cost to us.

So while we duck facing important and difficult issues, whether it be capital punishment, illegal immigration, equipment for our troops, the Afghan war, corruption or any other emotive issue you care to name. We by default have to carry some of the responsibility for the decisions made in our name. Also our willingness to always either to blame others or society or not hold anyone to blame gives our government and politicians the OK to do the same. We get the government and politicians we deserve because all they do is reflect us. So as you say it’s not our choice so do our politicians.

Again only my opinion.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69u OP   Man
over a year ago

moston


"You totally miss the point with "1 or 2 innocents" is ok. The part "innocents" should jump out at you just the same as the "600+" you constantly quote!

We have made a choice in this country and that is that the Death Penalty is not there to be used now as a punishment or a deterant!

You have also never answered the point that a murderer doesn't set out to be caught, they set out to murder and believe they will get away with it so in most cases the punishment for what they are about to do never enters their heads. "

Actually I don’t miss the point at all 1or2 lives (and that is a figure that I could dispute) against 600+ that is the difference between the convictions for murder/unlawful killing pre 68 and now.

As for your point about murderers, some kill in rage, we are all capable of snapping all it needs is the right stimulation and we are killers before we know what we have done. However there are 600+ killings each year in this country that would not happen if the killers know he/she/they would swing for it when caught.

You keep questioning my figures, I have told you where to find them, why don’t you go look at them, or have you and think that if you keep saying “"600+" you constantly quote! ” others will believe that I have made the number up. The only number I made up was the 1 or 2 a year, I arrived at that by taking all the names of innocents hanged or who would have been hanged over the last 40 years rounding it up to the nearest 10, doubling it, and then doubling it again dividing that by 40 and using that number.

The idea that we have made a choice and that is it, is madness. At some point we will have to admit that we have made a mistake and rectify it, how high does the murder rate have to climb before we acknowledge our error?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69u OP   Man
over a year ago

moston


"

I would rather no innocent person was hanged but if it’s a choice between 1 or 2 innocents a year going to the gallows and an extra 600+ murders a year, I’ll live with the guilt of 1 or 2 wrongful executions.

Now that is cold I admit, but to condemn 600+ a year to being killed to save you from having to deal with 1 or 2 wrongful executions a year is colder and cowardly in my opinion.

cool will, if that is what you believe... your wrongful execution first then! and I am assuming you've never murdered anyone...

after all your conscience is clear with one or two innocent people dying for what you are now calling "the greater good" and yes, they are rolled eyes....

I'm sorry.... its cold, and its sick beyond belief that someone would have that opinion....."

Funny that, many years ago I took an oath to die to protect this country and everyone in it.

I understood what I was doing then, and I did so willingly, if my death saved the lives of 600 of my fellow Britons I would die happy, so roll your eyes all you want. 1 life for 600 good swap as far as I am concerned. Guess you would hold a different view, but don’t worry there are lots like me that are willing to die so you can hold your views no matter how much we may disagree.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
Forum Mod
over a year ago

Will you took an oath to die for your country and luckily you're still here to tell the tale and if godforbid you did'nt make it home you would have died a hero

Not so for the poor innocent guy that has been stitched up,accused of murder,executed as a murderer,the innocent guy whose family have to deal with all that comes of being involved with a "murderer" their lives wrecked by shame and embarrassment,all for no need and all the time the real perpetrator is walking the streets

I don't think its a fair comparison to make

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *b430Man
over a year ago

Tayside


"You totally miss the point with "1 or 2 innocents" is ok. The part "innocents" should jump out at you just the same as the "600+" you constantly quote!

We have made a choice in this country and that is that the Death Penalty is not there to be used now as a punishment or a deterant!

You have also never answered the point that a murderer doesn't set out to be caught, they set out to murder and believe they will get away with it so in most cases the punishment for what they are about to do never enters their heads.

Actually I don’t miss the point at all 1or2 lives (and that is a figure that I could dispute) against 600+ that is the difference between the convictions for murder/unlawful killing pre 68 and now.

As for your point about murderers, some kill in rage, we are all capable of snapping all it needs is the right stimulation and we are killers before we know what we have done. However there are 600+ killings each year in this country that would not happen if the killers know he/she/they would swing for it when caught.

You keep questioning my figures, I have told you where to find them, why don’t you go look at them, or have you and think that if you keep saying “"600+" you constantly quote! ” others will believe that I have made the number up. The only number I made up was the 1 or 2 a year, I arrived at that by taking all the names of innocents hanged or who would have been hanged over the last 40 years rounding it up to the nearest 10, doubling it, and then doubling it again dividing that by 40 and using that number.

The idea that we have made a choice and that is it, is madness. At some point we will have to admit that we have made a mistake and rectify it, how high does the murder rate have to climb before we acknowledge our error?"

If people kill in "rage" after snapping, would they be thinking rationally enough to stop and consider the punishment? If they were thinking that straight they would stop before they actually killed the person because I am sure they wouldn't be wanting to be sent to prison (as the punishment is now) either!

I looked at the figures but as a famous saying goes "there are 3 types of lies; lies, damned lies and statistics" so I never take that much notice of them and prefer to use my own judgement. That is; that whether or not it is 1 or 2 innocent lives or 600+ they are still innocent! We shouldn't be so quick to say oh well we made a wee mistake with hanging those 2 folk didn't we oopss

The only mistake there would be would be to go back to handing out the Death Penalty on the understanding that we will kill a few innocent people along the way and sod them and their families that get left behind

The previous errors in hanging the innocent was one of the reasons the Death Penalty was done away with and we used to burn "witches" at the stake too so should we bring that back as well?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69u OP   Man
over a year ago

moston


"The previous errors in hanging the innocent was one of the reasons the Death Penalty was done away with and we used to burn "witches" at the stake too so should we bring that back as well? "

True, we abolished hanging but not because we had executed a number of innocent men. But because the abolitionist’s had “evidence” that hanging did not reduce the number of murders and that therefore it was not a deterrent to murder. Mainly using the same emotive arguments as have been used here tonight, that a number of innocent men had been hanged was only a minor if compelling part of their argument that was used to sway public opinion. The fact that murder jumped from 400 to 600 (aprox from memory) the year after the abolition was written off as an abortion, the fact that it has climbed steadily to just under 900 today while the standard required for a murder prosecution and conviction has climbed out of recognition to a point where you can stab someone to death and its manslaughter (to keep the murder rate under the 1000 a year) is laughable. That year on year the unlawful killing rate climbs is proof (although negative) that capital punishment works, at some point we will have to face this uncomfortable truth or accept that our streets will become more and more violent.

As for your comment about witches, I’m afraid that yet again you are factually incorrect, we hanged them.

By the way my figures are based on those convicted of unlawful killing yearly, not crimes committed.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69u OP   Man
over a year ago

moston

Thanks all for a stimulating debate!

Good night

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *b430Man
over a year ago

Tayside


"As for your comment about witches, I’m afraid that yet again you are factually incorrect, we hanged them.

"

Why yet again? Are yours' the only "facts" that we are meant to take as the truth?

Here is a wee bit about the history of "Burning at The Stake" that was used on women mainly as the men were more often hung, drawn and quartered instead - ouch lol

"When this method of execution was applied with skill, the condemned's body would burn progressively in the following sequence: calves, thighs and hands, torso and forearms, breasts, upper chest, face; and then finally death. On other occasions, people died from suffocation with only their calves on fire. Several records report that victims took over 2 hours to die. In many burnings a rope was attached to the convict's neck passing through a ring on the stake and they were simultaneously strangled and burnt. In later years in England some burnings only took place after the convict had already hanged for half an hour. In many areas in England the accused woman (men were hanged, drawn, and quartered) was seated astride a small seat called the saddle which was fixed half way up a permanently positioned iron stake. The stake was about 4 metres high and had chains hanging from it to hold the condemned woman still during her punishment. Having been taken to the place of execution in a cart with her hands firmly tied in front of her she was lifted over the executioner's shoulder and carried up a ladder against the stake to be sat astride the saddle. The chains were then fastened and sometimes she was painted with pitch (a black tar-like liquid) which was supposed to help the fire to burn her more quickly." - Google is great

I did say it was 1 of the reasons hanging was stopped but hey-ho you seems to think you know more than anyone else.

If you open up a debate in the forums, expect others to be able to come up with just as good arguments back on why they believe in what they do!

As always those are my views and I am sticking to them

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Trust the justice system ? That is a laugh.

How can you trust a system that fines a woman 1000 quid for selling a goldfish to a 12yr old, and tags her, but locks a lad up for only 5 years (for manslaughter) after stabbing a guy through the heart in a fight - as has happened not far from where we live ?"

She wasn't fined 1000 for selling a goldfish to a child. She was fined 1000 for cruelty to other animals, in this case a bird which I think was in a very poor condition, had a broken leg, etc. She had also offended many times before, so this was an escalation of punishment as earlier sentences hadn't persuaded her to change her ways.

But you do highlight a problem, which is the scale of punishments used. Unfortunately those scales can start to overlap, so what is perceived as a lesser offence seems to get the greater penalty. Manslaughter is always a problem because it can look like murder, feel like it should get the maximum penalty, but at the end of the day it isn't the same as murder.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *andcCouple
over a year ago

London and Cheshire


"hmmm in certian cases where the guilt is def established id say yeah a rope is the thing , huntly for example , yorkshire ripper etc etc these people id hang and sleep soundly at night , harold shipman you know the type i mean ."

NO! Don't bring back the death penalty, for people who kill others they should live a full life, in purgatory!

Lock them up, on their own, with no contact with the outside world, with nothing to do, no tv, no papers,shit food and just four bare walls to look at for the rest of there lives.. make them suffer, the death penalty lets them off with the easy option!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

how many miscarriages of justice have there been?

do i trust the police not to change evidence etc to get a conviction? no!!

do we hang the man who murders a peodophile who raped his child?

or the woman who after years of gettin battered off walls and livin in fear snaps and kills her partner?

who decides what punishment fits the crime?

what do we do when there is a miscarriage of justice??

ooops my bad sorry but it was for the greater good? im sure the families will understand!!

oh and burnin at the stake was common as was dooking a few of my family went that way because they were ACCUSED of witchcraft!! love geneology!!

oh and a few were shipped to aurstralia too for crimes!! x

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

This is a debate that has raged since the abolition of Capital Punishment was suspended in 1964 before being abolished 5 years later.

I am sure that there are many, if not all, here that would agree the right to life is a fundamental basic human right. It is WRONG for a murderer to take a life. So, why should it be OK for the State to take a life in retribution. That is not justice surely?

If Capital Punishment were to be reintroduced, what would be the mode of death? Lethal Injection, Hanging and Electrocution do not always run smoothly. When this happens where is the line drawn between justice and torture?

There are those that say the Death Penalty would act as a deterrent. If one goes to the USA (simply used as it is a democratic Western State that refuses to abolish the Death Penalty) then read n an article entitled The Death Penalty: No Evidence for Deterrence, where John Donnohue and Justin Wolfers examined recent statistical studies that claimed to show a deterrent effect from the death penalty. The authors conclude that the estimates claiming that the death penalty saves numerous lives "are simply not credible." In fact, the authors state that using the same data and proper methodology could lead to the exact opposite conclusion: that is, that the death penalty actually increases the number of murders. The authors state: "We show that with the most minor tweaking of the [research] instruments, one can get estimates ranging from 429 lives saved per execution to 86 lives lost. These numbers are outside the bounds of credibility."

There are also numerous studies which conlude emprirical data which is used to support Capital Punishment is seriously flawed.

If one looks at the UK then in fact since 1945 three people have received posthumous pardons: Timothy Evans in 1966 and in 1998 both Mahood Mattan and Derek Bentley.

After the abolition of capital punishment, there have been several famous cases of miscarriages of justice which would have resulted in executions, if that option had been available. A good example of this is the Birmingham Six case.

I am of the opinion that capital punishment cannot be reintroduced. It is merely a form of retribution rather than justice. I cannot condone that it is right for the State to take a life (in the name of justice) but it would be wrong for an individual to do the same.

The chance that one more innocent person could be executed is reason enough alone for me to be against it despite all the studies that show it may be a useful tool in the justice system or those that say it won't.

Just my two penneth worth...am going back to bed now to dream of fluffy clouds

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ickmealloverWoman
over a year ago

a very plush appartment off junt 7 M5

I'm all for it

Always have been

These days the likes of the yorkshire ripper and the wests should not be breathing in our jails but 6 feet under

There has to be absolutely no doubt

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I'm all for it

Always have been

These days the likes of the yorkshire ripper and the wests should not be breathing in our jails but 6 feet under

There has to be absolutely no doubt"

And the innocents wrongly convicted......just collateral damage?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ickmealloverWoman
over a year ago

a very plush appartment off junt 7 M5


"I'm all for it

Always have been

These days the likes of the yorkshire ripper and the wests should not be breathing in our jails but 6 feet under

There has to be absolutely no doubt

And the innocents wrongly convicted......just collateral damage?"

the 2 I have mentioned were not innocent

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I'm all for it

Always have been

These days the likes of the yorkshire ripper and the wests should not be breathing in our jails but 6 feet under

There has to be absolutely no doubt

And the innocents wrongly convicted......just collateral damage?

the 2 I have mentioned were not innocent "

Am not arguing their guilt or innocence...Am asking about those who are innocent, and then wrongly convicted....how does society justify killing those innocents all in the name of justice

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ickmealloverWoman
over a year ago

a very plush appartment off junt 7 M5


"I'm all for it

Always have been

These days the likes of the yorkshire ripper and the wests should not be breathing in our jails but 6 feet under

There has to be absolutely no doubt

And the innocents wrongly convicted......just collateral damage?

the 2 I have mentioned were not innocent

Am not arguing their guilt or innocence...Am asking about those who are innocent, and then wrongly convicted....how does society justify killing those innocents all in the name of justice"

times have changed with forensics and such

I did say that there would have to be NO DOUBT

I am still al for it

A life should often be forfeit for taking a life

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I am not personally sure it is morally right to take a life, for a life.

Add that to the fact that I would not want one innocent person to be hanged, electrocuted, injected etc etc and it's enough for me to object to the reintroduction of capital punishment. Just my opinion.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ickmealloverWoman
over a year ago

a very plush appartment off junt 7 M5

as is my opinion for it

I would also not wish for 1 innocent person to be executed

lots of innocent people are muredered however

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I haven't read every post in this thread, but my opinion is that the death penalty should only come into effect when its proven beyond all reasonable doubt that the person is guilty.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

If you were or a member of your family was the victim of murder what would you want the punishment to be?

The death pentalty or life (with the possibility or gettin out) in prison?

Its your choice.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *zMaleMan
over a year ago

penzance


"Sorry if this rambles.

I used to be firmly in the “rather 100 guilty go free than 1 innocent hang” camp. However over years I have watched with mounting horror how murderers go free when they plead we didn’t mean it, while petty criminals are targeted and receive ever harsher sentences.

Unfortunately I have come to the conclusion that this is because we have lost all perspective. I notice that no one has challenged my figures after I gave the sources but still less than 20 names have been put forward as justification why 600+ a year should die because the consequences of killing is not potential loss of your own life for the act.

I guess that the 20/30/40 or so who would have been hanged and then found innocent since 1968 are worth more than the thousands who have been killed because we as a society are unwilling to deal with violent killers.

As for where the line is drawn, for me it would be if you deliberately kill a person or kill a person while commissioning a crime.

So be it the deliberate act of murder, the stabbing in a fight or the car thief running down the owner of the car or the pedestrian in order to escape arrest, all would hang.

The example of the armed bank robbers I would answer with a question, how many bank robbers would use firearms if they know that the penalty for accidentally killing someone would be death?

At the moment we have the conservatives saying that they would change the law to make it harder for homeowners too be prosecuted for defending their property, even in cases that lead to deaths; we have laws and justice to protect ourselves from such a way of living. It is the courts that should determine life and death not the home owner, and it is our politicians who should step up and take the hard decision about capital punishment rather than abrogating their responsibility!

I will now say again that it is with regret and a heavy heart that I have reached the conclusion that we need the death penalty, like it or no.

"

Couple of points here.

1) If you put the figures in terms of percentages ie the number of murders/number of population 40 yrs ago and the same equation today. I think you'll find the murder rate has fallen.

2) Society has changed over the last 40yrs also. There are far more drug related killings today.

Just a couple of reasons to explain your figures

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *zMaleMan
over a year ago

penzance


"I haven't read every post in this thread, but my opinion is that the death penalty should only come into effect when its proven beyond all reasonable doubt that the person is guilty."

And whenever a conviction is made in a court of law, that is the standard set "beyond reasonable doubt". there is no a little bit guilty or maybe guilty. If convicted the case has been proved!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *b430Man
over a year ago

Tayside


"I haven't read every post in this thread, but my opinion is that the death penalty should only come into effect when its proven beyond all reasonable doubt that the person is guilty.

And whenever a conviction is made in a court of law, that is the standard set "beyond reasonable doubt". there is no a little bit guilty or maybe guilty. If convicted the case has been proved!"

Albeit sometimes on dubious evidence that is later proved incorrect (in some cases) and therefore appeals are won. The conviction is then overturned and the person is released from prison!

Nobody has quite found a way of releasing people from being dead after the Death Penalty has been carried out though!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *istress SassyCouple
over a year ago

manchester

Someone has already mentioned the 600 people a year figure, but just to re-iterate, where does this stand in terms of a percentage of the overall population? I am pretty sure that demographics have changed substantially since the 1960's and that 600 as a percentage of the overall population is actually less today. but I stand to be corrected?

Further more, the argument that the death penalty is a deterrent is just not true. There has been innumerable studies and research done to prove that this is just not simply true. If most murders were pre-meditated then this may have some bearing, but the fact is, that they are not.

Fact: People do not consider the consequences of their actions at the time they commit murder.

"People who commit murders either believe they will not be caught, are acting in a moment of a blinding anger or passion, or are substance abusers who murder impulsively. Furthermore, because the death penalty is discretional, a defendant could not know in advance whether he would be sentenced to life or death."

Moreover, most research has also shown that law enforcement professional do not believe that it works as deterrent:

"88% of criminologists do not believe the death penalty is an effective deterrent"

"A recent poll found that only 1 in 100 American police chiefs feel the death penalty has a serious impact on crime."

Yes these may be American statistics, but I believe that your claims that they don't count because the US is a 'lawless' society are disingenuous and are merely stated to back up your dubious statistics. The US is no more or less lawless than many other states. Yes they have the right to 'bear arms' which I also disagree with, but in fact many murders are committed by hand, stabbing, strangulation etc etc and not as a result of gun crime. The US is also a huge place and it would be interesting too look at murder/crime as percentage of population which gives a more accurate reflection than the figure as simply a number. Furthermore, as someone who goes to the US at least once a year and usually more, I find your claim that it is lawless society, laughable. You make it sound like the crazy days of the old wild west.

With regards to your 600 a year figure vs the death of innocent people who are killed by mistake, are you seriously claiming that one wrong makes a right and that their lives are any less valuable than those who are murdered? Murdered, by the way by individuals who should be held responsible for their actions and not by the state.

Is it really right that we sanction state murder, especially when we know there are issues such as institutionalised racism etc.? It is no accident that in countries such as the US, many of those who dies who later prove to be innocent are either poorer, immigrants and/or from ethnic minority backgrounds.

One innocent person dying at the hands of the state is one person too many.

And just to show, that's its not all about the US, lets look at a wider fact,

"The five countries in the world with the highest homicide rates that do not impose the death penalty have nearly half the number of murders per 100 000 people than the five countries with the highest homicides rates which do impose the death penalty" (United Nations Development program).

Care to take a stab (no pun intended!) at explaining that, or are they all lawless too?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top