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

Death penalty

Jump to newest
 

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

Time to reintroduce the death penalty? And, if so, for what offences?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

I'm completely against the death penalty.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

Don't believe in it

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *rightonsteveMan
over a year ago

Brighton - even Hove!


"Time to reintroduce the death penalty? And, if so, for what offences?"

No, I'd prefer they had life long imprisonment.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead


"Time to reintroduce the death penalty? And, if so, for what offences?"

can i ask a question.....

if you to reintroduce the death penalty OP... and you killed someone, and that person was later found to be innocent....

what would you say to the family of that person?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

This topic always gets messy in here..

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire

it wont ever work as a 'deterrent', its barbaric, its fallible and will lead to innocent people being executed..

and for some its too easy an option, let them rot and die within..

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"Time to reintroduce the death penalty? And, if so, for what offences?

can i ask a question.....

if you to reintroduce the death penalty OP... and you killed someone, and that person was later found to be innocent....

what would you say to the family of that person?"

Check the Taser thread mate. And the green arrow for that matter

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *iewMan
Forum Mod
over a year ago

Angus & Findhorn

No

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"Time to reintroduce the death penalty? And, if so, for what offences?

can i ask a question.....

if you to reintroduce the death penalty OP... and you killed someone, and that person was later found to be innocent....

what would you say to the family of that person?"

in the mind of the average advocate of the death penalty there is never an occasion whereby that will happen, or where one of their own may be about to face the drop..

its only ever the really bad ones..

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

Completely against. History and modern examples show that it does nothing to deter or reduce crime, and even one wrongful conviction is one too many. An enlightened legal system should focus on causes and prevention, not punishment and revenge. In my humble opinion.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"Time to reintroduce the death penalty? And, if so, for what offences?"

Timewasters

Anyone who likes Justin Bieber

BMW drivers

People who are cruel to animals

Litter bugs

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"Time to reintroduce the death penalty? And, if so, for what offences?

can i ask a question.....

if you to reintroduce the death penalty OP... and you killed someone, and that person was later found to be innocent....

what would you say to the family of that person?

Check the Taser thread mate. And the green arrow for that matter "

Thanks for seeing the link. Others are presupposing my support of the death penalty. Guessing you didn't

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

And when misjustice happens We can just apologies to the desists family and say sorry,We got it wrong ?

If people want to commit serious crimes that would warrant the death penalty.They will do it whether it carries the death penalty or not.

Only my opinion,but I would be against it.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

What makes you say this OP?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"Time to reintroduce the death penalty? And, if so, for what offences?"

Is the death penalty a proven deterrent?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"Time to reintroduce the death penalty? And, if so, for what offences?

can i ask a question.....

if you to reintroduce the death penalty OP... and you killed someone, and that person was later found to be innocent....

what would you say to the family of that person?

Check the Taser thread mate. And the green arrow for that matter

Thanks for seeing the link. Others are presupposing my support of the death penalty. Guessing you didn't "

Nope just your inflammatory passive aggressive trolling. Good work.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"Time to reintroduce the death penalty? And, if so, for what offences?

Is the death penalty a proven deterrent? "

Well in a way yes, as the said offender doesn't commit a crime again!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *iamondjoeMan
over a year ago

Glastonbury

No, no, no

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

OP I am assuming that you are in favour of the death sentence? The death sentence is barbbaric and favoured by people who confuse justice with vengeance. Much like IS, which is ironic considering elsewhere this morning you have criticised IS for the way they treat criminals?

You are quite confused aren;t you?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"Time to reintroduce the death penalty? And, if so, for what offences?

Is the death penalty a proven deterrent?

Well in a way yes, as the said offender doesn't commit a crime again! "

A life sentence would achieve the same result. And they still have been found guilty of the crime

So I;m confused that you say that in a way it is a deterrent?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ty31Man
over a year ago

NW London

As a Christian I am against it. The fundamental of Christianity is that only God can pass final judgement and that everyone who sins has the chance to atone for it and seek forgiveness. The death penalty removes this opportunity.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"Time to reintroduce the death penalty? And, if so, for what offences?

can i ask a question.....

if you to reintroduce the death penalty OP... and you killed someone, and that person was later found to be innocent....

what would you say to the family of that person?"

Would you not advocate its use for the likes of Hindley, Brady, the Wests et al?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"Time to reintroduce the death penalty? And, if so, for what offences?"

What crimes do you believe deserve the death penalty OP ?

And how would you suggest it's done ?

Beheaded,lethal injection, firing squad,Starved or public stoning ?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

No death penalty ever. Its revenge not punishment

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"OP I am assuming that you are in favour of the death sentence? The death sentence is barbbaric and favoured by people who confuse justice with vengeance. Much like IS, which is ironic considering elsewhere this morning you have criticised IS for the way they treat criminals?

You are quite confused aren;t you? "

Why are you assuming? You know what they say about don't assume, it makes....

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"Time to reintroduce the death penalty? And, if so, for what offences?

can i ask a question.....

if you to reintroduce the death penalty OP... and you killed someone, and that person was later found to be innocent....

what would you say to the family of that person?

Would you not advocate its use for the likes of Hindley, Brady, the Wests et al?"

Do you think the death penalty would have stopped any of those ?

I don't.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"Time to reintroduce the death penalty? And, if so, for what offences?

What crimes do you believe deserve the death penalty OP ?

And how would you suggest it's done ?

Beheaded,lethal injection, firing squad,Starved or public stoning ?"

There is in law a test: guilt has to be proven beyond a *reasonable* doubt. What about a further test? Guilt beyond *any* doubt?

That way the Wests would have been executed. Bodies under your house and garden proves guilt beyond any doubt. As for method, lethal injection, as it's the most humane method

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

It works so well in other countries as a deterrent...

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"Time to reintroduce the death penalty? And, if so, for what offences?

can i ask a question.....

if you to reintroduce the death penalty OP... and you killed someone, and that person was later found to be innocent....

what would you say to the family of that person?

Would you not advocate its use for the likes of Hindley, Brady, the Wests et al?

Do you think the death penalty would have stopped any of those ?

I don't."

Would have given closure to the families.

They were haunted by the continual press coverage of Hindley's attempts to get released.

Have you ever seen footage of Ann West or Winnie Johnson? Emotionally crippled, not only by the deaths of their children but also the number of apologist for Hindley

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"Time to reintroduce the death penalty? And, if so, for what offences?

What crimes do you believe deserve the death penalty OP ?

And how would you suggest it's done ?

Beheaded,lethal injection, firing squad,Starved or public stoning ?

There is in law a test: guilt has to be proven beyond a *reasonable* doubt. What about a further test? Guilt beyond *any* doubt?

That way the Wests would have been executed. Bodies under your house and garden proves guilt beyond any doubt. As for method, lethal injection, as it's the most humane method"

Most people wouldn't argue about the ONE case you've picked.But what about the thousands of others that pass through the courts each year ?

Oscar Pistorius.Should he be on death row ?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *oward1978Man
over a year ago

Rotherham


"Time to reintroduce the death penalty? And, if so, for what offences?"

I can't say I'm a big fan of the death penalty. Sure it wouldn't be any great loss to humanity and I certainly wouldn't lose any sleep over it, if some murderer's and rapist's etc were no longer with us. But the thought of one set of humans having the ability to legally murder another human being doesn't sit too well with me. Plus there's the cases where innocent people have been executed as well. I would rather they locked the worst criminals up for life. And by that I really mean 'the rest of their lives' with no chance of parole.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

Or what about The Mccanns ? depending on how some people think they also could be on death row(even though nobody knows what really happened)

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *andsonjohnMan
over a year ago

in the eye of the storm


"Time to reintroduce the death penalty? And, if so, for what offences?"

OK bring it back but under these rules the next of kin of the murdered individual decide on whether its death or life behind bars one year after the trail.

That one year is cooling down period if after one year they want the death sentence for the person or persons who took their love ones life so be it .

Let the victim family decide after guilt has been proven .

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"Time to reintroduce the death penalty? And, if so, for what offences?

What crimes do you believe deserve the death penalty OP ?

And how would you suggest it's done ?

Beheaded,lethal injection, firing squad,Starved or public stoning ?

There is in law a test: guilt has to be proven beyond a *reasonable* doubt. What about a further test? Guilt beyond *any* doubt?

That way the Wests would have been executed. Bodies under your house and garden proves guilt beyond any doubt. As for method, lethal injection, as it's the most humane method"

How does a body under your house prove guilt without any doubt?

I hope you never do jury service

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"Or what about The Mccanns ? depending on how some people think they also could be on death row(even though nobody knows what really happened)

"

As they've never been charged with any offence let alone found guilty how could they be on death row?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"Or what about The Mccanns ? depending on how some people think they also could be on death row(even though nobody knows what really happened)

"

But they're not. So why mention them?

More to the point:-

What would you do with the Wests? Hindley? Brady? Dennis Nielsen?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"OP I am assuming that you are in favour of the death sentence? The death sentence is barbbaric and favoured by people who confuse justice with vengeance. Much like IS, which is ironic considering elsewhere this morning you have criticised IS for the way they treat criminals?

You are quite confused aren;t you?

Why are you assuming? You know what they say about don't assume, it makes...."

Well I'm assuming based on the wording of your post. And this is confirmed by your subsequent contributions on this thread?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *heOwlMan
over a year ago

Altrincham

No, never.

Firstly before comitting state sanctioned murder, one has to be 100% certain that the target is the culprit, which is not currently possible (and I am not sure I would really want to live in a society where it was possible anyway.)

Secondly, assuming the above, terminating someones life is far too quick a punishment for any crime that could justify such action.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"Or what about The Mccanns ? depending on how some people think they also could be on death row(even though nobody knows what really happened)

But they're not. So why mention them?

More to the point:-

What would you do with the Wests? Hindley? Brady? Dennis Nielsen? "

Brady is detained under the mental health act. What are you suggesting be done with him?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *entaur_UKMan
over a year ago

Cannock


"Time to reintroduce the death penalty? And, if so, for what offences?

What crimes do you believe deserve the death penalty OP ?

And how would you suggest it's done ?

Beheaded,lethal injection, firing squad,Starved or public stoning ?

There is in law a test: guilt has to be proven beyond a *reasonable* doubt. What about a further test? Guilt beyond *any* doubt?

That way the Wests would have been executed. Bodies under your house and garden proves guilt beyond any doubt. As for method, lethal injection, as it's the most humane method

Most people wouldn't argue about the ONE case you've picked.But what about the thousands of others that pass through the courts each year ?

Oscar Pistorius.Should he be on death row ?"

What about Michael Adebowale and Michael Adebolajo, the killers of Lee Rugby. No doubt at all there either they were caught on camera commiting their evil act. Should taxpayers money be spent keeping them alive in prison?

Oscar pistorious was found guilty of manslaughter not murder wasn't he? There is a difference between the 2.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"Time to reintroduce the death penalty? And, if so, for what offences?

What crimes do you believe deserve the death penalty OP ?

And how would you suggest it's done ?

Beheaded,lethal injection, firing squad,Starved or public stoning ?

There is in law a test: guilt has to be proven beyond a *reasonable* doubt. What about a further test? Guilt beyond *any* doubt?

That way the Wests would have been executed. Bodies under your house and garden proves guilt beyond any doubt. As for method, lethal injection, as it's the most humane method

How does a body under your house prove guilt without any doubt?

I hope you never do jury service "

Sorry. I assumed you knew Fred West did the work under which the bodies were buried and it was his house. One victim was his 16 year old daughter. Still maintain he is innocent????

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

I think death penalty is a easy way out....

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

I'm for it under special circumstances where the offenders guilt has been proven beyond doubt.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"Time to reintroduce the death penalty? And, if so, for what offences?

What crimes do you believe deserve the death penalty OP ?

And how would you suggest it's done ?

Beheaded,lethal injection, firing squad,Starved or public stoning ?

There is in law a test: guilt has to be proven beyond a *reasonable* doubt. What about a further test? Guilt beyond *any* doubt?

That way the Wests would have been executed. Bodies under your house and garden proves guilt beyond any doubt. As for method, lethal injection, as it's the most humane method

Most people wouldn't argue about the ONE case you've picked.But what about the thousands of others that pass through the courts each year ?

Oscar Pistorius.Should he be on death row ?

What about Michael Adebowale and Michael Adebolajo, the killers of Lee Rugby. No doubt at all there either they were caught on camera commiting their evil act. Should taxpayers money be spent keeping them alive in prison?

Oscar pistorious was found guilty of manslaughter not murder wasn't he? There is a difference between the 2. "

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"I'm for it under special circumstances where the offenders guilt has been proven beyond doubt."

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

The death penalty had no place in civilised society

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"Or what about The Mccanns ? depending on how some people think they also could be on death row(even though nobody knows what really happened)

But they're not. So why mention them?

More to the point:-

What would you do with the Wests? Hindley? Brady? Dennis Nielsen?

Brady is detained under the mental health act. What are you suggesting be done with him?"

He wants to die. Let him

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

has**

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ty31Man
over a year ago

NW London


"It works so well in other countries as a deterrent... "

American gun massacres??

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"OP I am assuming that you are in favour of the death sentence? The death sentence is barbbaric and favoured by people who confuse justice with vengeance. Much like IS, which is ironic considering elsewhere this morning you have criticised IS for the way they treat criminals?

You are quite confused aren;t you?

Why are you assuming? You know what they say about don't assume, it makes....

Well I'm assuming based on the wording of your post. And this is confirmed by your subsequent contributions on this thread?

"

Well you shouldn't assume. I advocate its use but only in the most extreme cases and where there are no doubts and no mitigation

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *estivalMan
over a year ago

borehamwood

Although i do think peados and the like deserve the death sentence and also lee rigbys killers it does seem to quick a punishment. Much more of a punishment would be solitary confinment for the rest of there lives

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *its_n_piecesCouple
over a year ago


"I'm for it under special circumstances where the offenders guilt has been proven beyond doubt."

the cardiff three's case was "proved beyond doubt" at the time ..... turns out it wasn't them at all .... and there's plenty more cases such as this .... you're idea is un-workable

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"Time to reintroduce the death penalty? And, if so, for what offences?

What crimes do you believe deserve the death penalty OP ?

And how would you suggest it's done ?

Beheaded,lethal injection, firing squad,Starved or public stoning ?

There is in law a test: guilt has to be proven beyond a *reasonable* doubt. What about a further test? Guilt beyond *any* doubt?

That way the Wests would have been executed. Bodies under your house and garden proves guilt beyond any doubt. As for method, lethal injection, as it's the most humane method

How does a body under your house prove guilt without any doubt?

I hope you never do jury service

Sorry. I assumed you knew Fred West did the work under which the bodies were buried and it was his house. One victim was his 16 year old daughter. Still maintain he is innocent????"

Where on earth did I say he was innocent!

I was merely pointing out that citing that as example of your theory of proving 'guilt beyond any doubt" was ridiculously weak.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *entaur_UKMan
over a year ago

Cannock


"It works so well in other countries as a deterrent...

American gun massacres??"

A common theme with the gun massacres in America is the perpetrators usually end up turning the gun on themselves or the police end up shooting and killing them. They often don't end up making it to court to face trial.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"As a Christian I am against it. The fundamental of Christianity is that only God can pass final judgement and that everyone who sins has the chance to atone for it and seek forgiveness. The death penalty removes this opportunity."

Does Christianity makes u a good and better Swinger too? Just saying when religion name is brought up

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"Time to reintroduce the death penalty? And, if so, for what offences?

can i ask a question.....

if you to reintroduce the death penalty OP... and you killed someone, and that person was later found to be innocent....

what would you say to the family of that person?

Check the Taser thread mate. And the green arrow for that matter

Thanks for seeing the link. Others are presupposing my support of the death penalty. Guessing you didn't

Nope just your inflammatory passive aggressive trolling. Good work. "

Please explain. Is playing devil's advocate trolling, being passive aggressive?

Please explain

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *andsonjohnMan
over a year ago

in the eye of the storm


"No, never.

Firstly before comitting state sanctioned murder, one has to be 100% certain that the target is the culprit, which is not currently possible (and I am not sure I would really want to live in a society where it was possible anyway.)

Secondly, assuming the above, terminating someones life is far too quick a punishment for any crime that could justify such action.

"

Good point but it can be argued any life no matter how wretched is better than no life at all .

Is being locked up receiving fan mail in the case of serial killers really that bad of a thing compared with non existence.

By the way don't read into my posts I'm for the death sentence I believe only someone effected by murder can truly have a opinion on it because I have no idea what having a love one of mine murdered would do o be .

But I suspect vengeance would be high on my list especial if it was premeditated and my love one suffered greatly before they where killed .

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"OP I am assuming that you are in favour of the death sentence? The death sentence is barbbaric and favoured by people who confuse justice with vengeance. Much like IS, which is ironic considering elsewhere this morning you have criticised IS for the way they treat criminals?

You are quite confused aren;t you?

Why are you assuming? You know what they say about don't assume, it makes....

Well I'm assuming based on the wording of your post. And this is confirmed by your subsequent contributions on this thread?

Well you shouldn't assume. I advocate its use but only in the most extreme cases and where there are no doubts and no mitigation "

So you are oin favour of it then. And my assumption that you are in faavour of it was spot on.

So where on earth are you going with this 'shouldn;t assume' argument?

So care to explain why we need to introduce but you have criticised muslim countries/IS for their use of it as an example of how evil they are?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

Never (except for Justin Bieber fans, of course, and train travellers who hog two seats. We have to maintain a semblance of civilisation).

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *esmond and Molly JonesCouple
over a year ago

Watford

Works great in America. Nobody ever kills anybody there.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"OP I am assuming that you are in favour of the death sentence? The death sentence is barbbaric and favoured by people who confuse justice with vengeance. Much like IS, which is ironic considering elsewhere this morning you have criticised IS for the way they treat criminals?

You are quite confused aren;t you?

Why are you assuming? You know what they say about don't assume, it makes....

Well I'm assuming based on the wording of your post. And this is confirmed by your subsequent contributions on this thread?

Well you shouldn't assume. I advocate its use but only in the most extreme cases and where there are no doubts and no mitigation

So you are oin favour of it then. And my assumption that you are in faavour of it was spot on.

So where on earth are you going with this 'shouldn;t assume' argument?

So care to explain why we need to introduce but you have criticised muslim countries/IS for their use of it as an example of how evil they are?"

I do support it for the likes of Hindley and Brady raping and murdering children.

I don't support beheading aid workers trying to help people, or beheading an antiquities expert in his 80s in Syria or burning a pilot to death in a cage, all of which ISIS have done.

Surely you can see the difference?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"OP I am assuming that you are in favour of the death sentence? The death sentence is barbbaric and favoured by people who confuse justice with vengeance. Much like IS, which is ironic considering elsewhere this morning you have criticised IS for the way they treat criminals?

You are quite confused aren;t you?

Why are you assuming? You know what they say about don't assume, it makes....

Well I'm assuming based on the wording of your post. And this is confirmed by your subsequent contributions on this thread?

Well you shouldn't assume. I advocate its use but only in the most extreme cases and where there are no doubts and no mitigation "

look up the Stefan Kiszko case..

he would using your thinking have been murdered by the state based on him being totally innocent..

if its a case of killing just one innocent person then the risk is too high even if the ones where the guilt is proven..

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

[Removed by poster at 17/10/15 13:05:54]

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"OP I am assuming that you are in favour of the death sentence? The death sentence is barbbaric and favoured by people who confuse justice with vengeance. Much like IS, which is ironic considering elsewhere this morning you have criticised IS for the way they treat criminals?

You are quite confused aren;t you?

Why are you assuming? You know what they say about don't assume, it makes....

Well I'm assuming based on the wording of your post. And this is confirmed by your subsequent contributions on this thread?

Well you shouldn't assume. I advocate its use but only in the most extreme cases and where there are no doubts and no mitigation

So you are oin favour of it then. And my assumption that you are in faavour of it was spot on.

So where on earth are you going with this 'shouldn;t assume' argument?

So care to explain why we need to introduce but you have criticised muslim countries/IS for their use of it as an example of how evil they are?

I do support it for the likes of Hindley and Brady raping and murdering children.

I don't support beheading aid workers trying to help people, or beheading an antiquities expert in his 80s in Syria or burning a pilot to death in a cage, all of which ISIS have done.

Surely you can see the difference? "

The only difference I see is that you feel that it is okay for you to be a self appointed judge jury and executor but are disgusted that others may want the same rights as they have a very different moral compass to you as to what is deemed punishable by death.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"Time to reintroduce the death penalty? And, if so, for what offences?"

Child abuse!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *its_n_piecesCouple
over a year ago


"OP I am assuming that you are in favour of the death sentence? The death sentence is barbbaric and favoured by people who confuse justice with vengeance. Much like IS, which is ironic considering elsewhere this morning you have criticised IS for the way they treat criminals?

You are quite confused aren;t you?

Why are you assuming? You know what they say about don't assume, it makes....

Well I'm assuming based on the wording of your post. And this is confirmed by your subsequent contributions on this thread?

Well you shouldn't assume. I advocate its use but only in the most extreme cases and where there are no doubts and no mitigation

look up the Stefan Kiszko case..

he would using your thinking have been murdered by the state based on him being totally innocent..

if its a case of killing just one innocent person then the risk is too high even if the ones where the guilt is proven..

"

stefan kiszko ..... probably the worst miscarriage of justice in the UK ..... it was such a sad scene watching the news report on the day of his release .... the trauma he suffered at the hands of the prison service was truely disgusting.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"OP I am assuming that you are in favour of the death sentence? The death sentence is barbbaric and favoured by people who confuse justice with vengeance. Much like IS, which is ironic considering elsewhere this morning you have criticised IS for the way they treat criminals?

You are quite confused aren;t you?

Why are you assuming? You know what they say about don't assume, it makes....

Well I'm assuming based on the wording of your post. And this is confirmed by your subsequent contributions on this thread?

Well you shouldn't assume. I advocate its use but only in the most extreme cases and where there are no doubts and no mitigation

look up the Stefan Kiszko case..

he would using your thinking have been murdered by the state based on him being totally innocent..

if its a case of killing just one innocent person then the risk is too high even if the ones where the guilt is proven..

"

And it was this quote I have been waiting to hear. Yes, that idea is a cornerstone to the British law. Now read the Taser thread. Apparently there's a one percent chance you will die. And that's ok, apparently

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ty31Man
over a year ago

NW London


"As a Christian I am against it.

Does Christianity makes u a good and better Swinger too? Just saying when religion name is brought up "

I just like to think that I'm almost a good person. I don't see sex as something to be ashamed of or as a particularly sinful act (if done for the right reasons and intentions). As a single man I don't/can't regard myself as a swinger and I wouldn't as I don't like to attach too many labels. I just do what I think is right at any point in time and hope for the best.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"No, never.

Firstly before comitting state sanctioned murder, one has to be 100% certain that the target is the culprit, which is not currently possible (and I am not sure I would really want to live in a society where it was possible anyway.)

Secondly, assuming the above, terminating someones life is far too quick a punishment for any crime that could justify such action.

Good point but it can be argued any life no matter how wretched is better than no life at all .

Is being locked up receiving fan mail in the case of serial killers really that bad of a thing compared with non existence.

By the way don't read into my posts I'm for the death sentence I believe only someone effected by murder can truly have a opinion on it because I have no idea what having a love one of mine murdered would do o be .

But I suspect vengeance would be high on my list especial if it was premeditated and my love one suffered greatly before they where killed ."
.

That's exactly why we don't let victims determine punishment!

It's a one way street downwards, society gets dragged down by barbarism be it by individuals or the state, victims should be given help to get over their problems not made to have more physiological problems of whether their attacker gets murdered or not heaped on them!

We had it, we evolved past it for bloody good reasons, we should be quite rightly pushing for other countries to do the same!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"OP I am assuming that you are in favour of the death sentence? The death sentence is barbbaric and favoured by people who confuse justice with vengeance. Much like IS, which is ironic considering elsewhere this morning you have criticised IS for the way they treat criminals?

You are quite confused aren;t you?

Why are you assuming? You know what they say about don't assume, it makes....

Well I'm assuming based on the wording of your post. And this is confirmed by your subsequent contributions on this thread?

Well you shouldn't assume. I advocate its use but only in the most extreme cases and where there are no doubts and no mitigation

look up the Stefan Kiszko case..

he would using your thinking have been murdered by the state based on him being totally innocent..

if its a case of killing just one innocent person then the risk is too high even if the ones where the guilt is proven..

"

I know the case and I have never said it should be used on him. He wasn't proven guilty beyond any doubt, though there would have been mitigation if he had been guilty (his low IQ).

Thankfully he was later cleared

At no point have I suggested he and his like should be

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"OP I am assuming that you are in favour of the death sentence? The death sentence is barbbaric and favoured by people who confuse justice with vengeance. Much like IS, which is ironic considering elsewhere this morning you have criticised IS for the way they treat criminals?

You are quite confused aren;t you?

Why are you assuming? You know what they say about don't assume, it makes....

Well I'm assuming based on the wording of your post. And this is confirmed by your subsequent contributions on this thread?

Well you shouldn't assume. I advocate its use but only in the most extreme cases and where there are no doubts and no mitigation

look up the Stefan Kiszko case..

he would using your thinking have been murdered by the state based on him being totally innocent..

if its a case of killing just one innocent person then the risk is too high even if the ones where the guilt is proven..

I know the case and I have never said it should be used on him. He wasn't proven guilty beyond any doubt, though there would have been mitigation if he had been guilty (his low IQ).

Thankfully he was later cleared

At no point have I suggested he and his like should be"

So who should and on what criteria?

Can you expand on what constitutes 'beyond any doubt'? Why are Hindlay Brady and Nielson (they are other examples you've cited) guilty beyond any doubt?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"OP I am assuming that you are in favour of the death sentence? The death sentence is barbbaric and favoured by people who confuse justice with vengeance. Much like IS, which is ironic considering elsewhere this morning you have criticised IS for the way they treat criminals?

You are quite confused aren;t you?

Why are you assuming? You know what they say about don't assume, it makes....

Well I'm assuming based on the wording of your post. And this is confirmed by your subsequent contributions on this thread?

Well you shouldn't assume. I advocate its use but only in the most extreme cases and where there are no doubts and no mitigation "

Who decides what constitutes an extreme case?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"OP I am assuming that you are in favour of the death sentence? The death sentence is barbbaric and favoured by people who confuse justice with vengeance. Much like IS, which is ironic considering elsewhere this morning you have criticised IS for the way they treat criminals?

You are quite confused aren;t you?

Why are you assuming? You know what they say about don't assume, it makes....

Well I'm assuming based on the wording of your post. And this is confirmed by your subsequent contributions on this thread?

Well you shouldn't assume. I advocate its use but only in the most extreme cases and where there are no doubts and no mitigation

So you are oin favour of it then. And my assumption that you are in faavour of it was spot on.

So where on earth are you going with this 'shouldn;t assume' argument?

So care to explain why we need to introduce but you have criticised muslim countries/IS for their use of it as an example of how evil they are?

I do support it for the likes of Hindley and Brady raping and murdering children.

I don't support beheading aid workers trying to help people, or beheading an antiquities expert in his 80s in Syria or burning a pilot to death in a cage, all of which ISIS have done.

Surely you can see the difference?

The only difference I see is that you feel that it is okay for you to be a self appointed judge jury and executor but are disgusted that others may want the same rights as they have a very different moral compass to you as to what is deemed punishable by death."

And I'm sad that you can't see that, in extreme cases, the death penalty should be an option: take Ian Huntly. I can't see any good reason to keep him alive. He could escape and reoffend - it's happened - he could very well be killed savagely in prison - it happens - or he could kill another inmate or member of staff - it has happened.

There's no connection with wanting a death penalty for the worst murderers in Britain - in humane conditions - and what IS are doing, e.g., beheading innocent aid workers.

I don't care for your comment that I am self appointed judge, jury and executioner. I'm not. I just highlighted the worst cases and laid it open for discussion.

So why not try to debate and show me why having no death penalty is better than executing the very worst killers in our society?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *its_n_piecesCouple
over a year ago


"OP I am assuming that you are in favour of the death sentence? The death sentence is barbbaric and favoured by people who confuse justice with vengeance. Much like IS, which is ironic considering elsewhere this morning you have criticised IS for the way they treat criminals?

You are quite confused aren;t you?

Why are you assuming? You know what they say about don't assume, it makes....

Well I'm assuming based on the wording of your post. And this is confirmed by your subsequent contributions on this thread?

Well you shouldn't assume. I advocate its use but only in the most extreme cases and where there are no doubts and no mitigation

look up the Stefan Kiszko case..

he would using your thinking have been murdered by the state based on him being totally innocent..

if its a case of killing just one innocent person then the risk is too high even if the ones where the guilt is proven..

I know the case and I have never said it should be used on him. He wasn't proven guilty beyond any doubt, though there would have been mitigation if he had been guilty (his low IQ).

Thankfully he was later cleared

At no point have I suggested he and his like should be"

actually at the time of his trial and in the eyes of the jury he was convicted beyond all reasonable doubt. he couldn't have been given a custodial scentence otherwise

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *eforfuncplCouple
over a year ago

Morecambe


"Time to reintroduce the death penalty? And, if so, for what offences?"

Absolutely beyond doubt then yes death penalty lethal injection

Murder

Terrorism

Rape of children

They deserve it !!!

People who say no to it soon change their tune if something happens to their loved ones I'd imagine.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"OP I am assuming that you are in favour of the death sentence? The death sentence is barbbaric and favoured by people who confuse justice with vengeance. Much like IS, which is ironic considering elsewhere this morning you have criticised IS for the way they treat criminals?

You are quite confused aren;t you?

Why are you assuming? You know what they say about don't assume, it makes....

Well I'm assuming based on the wording of your post. And this is confirmed by your subsequent contributions on this thread?

Well you shouldn't assume. I advocate its use but only in the most extreme cases and where there are no doubts and no mitigation

Who decides what constitutes an extreme case?

"

The judge and jury in the first case, having heard all the evidence, followed by an over_iew by the Law lords and finally the Home Secretary making a recommendation to the PM

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *entaur_UKMan
over a year ago

Cannock


"OP I am assuming that you are in favour of the death sentence? The death sentence is barbbaric and favoured by people who confuse justice with vengeance. Much like IS, which is ironic considering elsewhere this morning you have criticised IS for the way they treat criminals?

You are quite confused aren;t you?

Why are you assuming? You know what they say about don't assume, it makes....

Well I'm assuming based on the wording of your post. And this is confirmed by your subsequent contributions on this thread?

Well you shouldn't assume. I advocate its use but only in the most extreme cases and where there are no doubts and no mitigation

look up the Stefan Kiszko case..

he would using your thinking have been murdered by the state based on him being totally innocent..

if its a case of killing just one innocent person then the risk is too high even if the ones where the guilt is proven..

I know the case and I have never said it should be used on him. He wasn't proven guilty beyond any doubt, though there would have been mitigation if he had been guilty (his low IQ).

Thankfully he was later cleared

At no point have I suggested he and his like should be

So who should and on what criteria?

Can you expand on what constitutes 'beyond any doubt'? Why are Hindlay Brady and Nielson (they are other examples you've cited) guilty beyond any doubt?

"

Lee Rigbys killers were caught on camera doing what they did. How can any doubt be applied to them?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"OP I am assuming that you are in favour of the death sentence? The death sentence is barbbaric and favoured by people who confuse justice with vengeance. Much like IS, which is ironic considering elsewhere this morning you have criticised IS for the way they treat criminals?

You are quite confused aren;t you?

Why are you assuming? You know what they say about don't assume, it makes....

Well I'm assuming based on the wording of your post. And this is confirmed by your subsequent contributions on this thread?

Well you shouldn't assume. I advocate its use but only in the most extreme cases and where there are no doubts and no mitigation

So you are oin favour of it then. And my assumption that you are in faavour of it was spot on.

So where on earth are you going with this 'shouldn;t assume' argument?

So care to explain why we need to introduce but you have criticised muslim countries/IS for their use of it as an example of how evil they are?

I do support it for the likes of Hindley and Brady raping and murdering children.

I don't support beheading aid workers trying to help people, or beheading an antiquities expert in his 80s in Syria or burning a pilot to death in a cage, all of which ISIS have done.

Surely you can see the difference?

The only difference I see is that you feel that it is okay for you to be a self appointed judge jury and executor but are disgusted that others may want the same rights as they have a very different moral compass to you as to what is deemed punishable by death.

And I'm sad that you can't see that, in extreme cases, the death penalty should be an option: take Ian Huntly. I can't see any good reason to keep him alive. He could escape and reoffend - it's happened - he could very well be killed savagely in prison - it happens - or he could kill another inmate or member of staff - it has happened.

There's no connection with wanting a death penalty for the worst murderers in Britain - in humane conditions - and what IS are doing, e.g., beheading innocent aid workers.

I don't care for your comment that I am self appointed judge, jury and executioner. I'm not. I just highlighted the worst cases and laid it open for discussion.

So why not try to debate and show me why having no death penalty is better than executing the very worst killers in our society? "

Your own argument has changed in this very thread from 'guilty without any doubt' to 'most extreme cases'. The most extreme cases being the ones that disgust you, namely child killers. So what about murderers, more specifically those convicted of a racist crime? Do they fall in to your most extreme case scenario?

As for a debate, are you suggesting questioning your _iew (my opening post made my opinion pretty clear) is not a debate?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *andsonjohnMan
over a year ago

in the eye of the storm


"No, never.

Firstly before comitting state sanctioned murder, one has to be 100% certain that the target is the culprit, which is not currently possible (and I am not sure I would really want to live in a society where it was possible anyway.)

Secondly, assuming the above, terminating someones life is far too quick a punishment for any crime that could justify such action.

Good point but it can be argued any life no matter how wretched is better than no life at all .

Is being locked up receiving fan mail in the case of serial killers really that bad of a thing compared with non existence.

By the way don't read into my posts I'm for the death sentence I believe only someone effected by murder can truly have a opinion on it because I have no idea what having a love one of mine murdered would do o be .

But I suspect vengeance would be high on my list especial if it was premeditated and my love one suffered greatly before they where killed ..

That's exactly why we don't let victims determine punishment!

It's a one way street downwards, society gets dragged down by barbarism be it by individuals or the state, victims should be given help to get over their problems not made to have more physiological problems of whether their attacker gets murdered or not heaped on them!

We had it, we evolved past it for bloody good reasons, we should be quite rightly pushing for other countries to do the same!"

You see that where we differ in our out looks I think only those who have suffered have the right to determine the punishment .

how do i know what its like to wake up every day knowing your love one suffered greatly at the hands of a vile evil person before they were killed .

would I have the strength to forgive enough to get on with me life content in the knowledge the person who did the crime was locked up unable to hurt anyone else or would the knowledge they still get to feel the sun on their face enjoy a meal watch TV read and enjoy a book all the thing the love one of mine will never enjoy again because they were murder.

drive me mad ruin my life in the process and would vengeance give me peace a ending I could live with,.

Who can know but I'm not afraid to say I suspect I'm the kind of person who would seek vengeance for one very selfish reason I suspect knowing the vile evil person who took my loves life is dead would give me peace .

Hopefully its something I will never have to find out about myself as a human being .

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"There's no connection with wanting a death penalty for the worst murderers in Britain - in humane conditions - and what IS are doing, e.g., beheading innocent aid workers.

"

So ho you execute someone on humane conditions?

Which one would you choose? Electrocution? Lethal injection? Hanging? All pretty barbaric with examples of it going wrong leading to extreme suffering

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"Although i do think peados and the like deserve the death sentence and also lee rigbys killers it does seem to quick a punishment. Much more of a punishment would be solitary confinment for the rest of there lives"

Peados should all be put in a large room together with 1 slice of bread a day each only 1 toilet so they have to drink toilet water and a very sharp knife

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"OP I am assuming that you are in favour of the death sentence? The death sentence is barbbaric and favoured by people who confuse justice with vengeance. Much like IS, which is ironic considering elsewhere this morning you have criticised IS for the way they treat criminals?

You are quite confused aren;t you?

Why are you assuming? You know what they say about don't assume, it makes....

Well I'm assuming based on the wording of your post. And this is confirmed by your subsequent contributions on this thread?

Well you shouldn't assume. I advocate its use but only in the most extreme cases and where there are no doubts and no mitigation

look up the Stefan Kiszko case..

he would using your thinking have been murdered by the state based on him being totally innocent..

if its a case of killing just one innocent person then the risk is too high even if the ones where the guilt is proven..

I know the case and I have never said it should be used on him. He wasn't proven guilty beyond any doubt, though there would have been mitigation if he had been guilty (his low IQ).

Thankfully he was later cleared

At no point have I suggested he and his like should be

So who should and on what criteria?

Can you expand on what constitutes 'beyond any doubt'? Why are Hindlay Brady and Nielson (they are other examples you've cited) guilty beyond any doubt?

Lee Rigbys killers were caught on camera doing what they did. How can any doubt be applied to them? "

It can't. Of course it ods possible to be guilty beyond any doubt. But those circumstances are very unusual. If someone is going to advocate the death sentence for those giuilty beyond any doubt then it follows they should be able to quantify what constitutes that in broader terms

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"OP I am assuming that you are in favour of the death sentence? The death sentence is barbbaric and favoured by people who confuse justice with vengeance. Much like IS, which is ironic considering elsewhere this morning you have criticised IS for the way they treat criminals?

You are quite confused aren;t you?

Why are you assuming? You know what they say about don't assume, it makes....

Well I'm assuming based on the wording of your post. And this is confirmed by your subsequent contributions on this thread?

Well you shouldn't assume. I advocate its use but only in the most extreme cases and where there are no doubts and no mitigation

look up the Stefan Kiszko case..

he would using your thinking have been murdered by the state based on him being totally innocent..

if its a case of killing just one innocent person then the risk is too high even if the ones where the guilt is proven..

I know the case and I have never said it should be used on him. He wasn't proven guilty beyond any doubt, though there would have been mitigation if he had been guilty (his low IQ).

Thankfully he was later cleared

At no point have I suggested he and his like should be

So who should and on what criteria?

Can you expand on what constitutes 'beyond any doubt'? Why are Hindlay Brady and Nielson (they are other examples you've cited) guilty beyond any doubt?

"

Study the case and you will know.

Timothy Evans' body was in their house when the police arrested them. Lesley Anne Downey's voice was on a tape pleading for her life. Brady and Hindleys voices were on the tape telling her to shut up. The full details of what was said on tape where so horrific that they have never been released. Pictures of Brady and Hindley were found. Where they stood graves of children were found.

I reckon that's guilt beyond doubt

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"Although i do think peados and the like deserve the death sentence and also lee rigbys killers it does seem to quick a punishment. Much more of a punishment would be solitary confinment for the rest of there lives

Peados should all be put in a large room together with 1 slice of bread a day each only 1 toilet so they have to drink toilet water and a very sharp knife "

Do you honestly beleieve that?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ibbyhunterCouple
over a year ago

keighley


"Time to reintroduce the death penalty? And, if so, for what offences?

can i ask a question.....

if you to reintroduce the death penalty OP... and you killed someone, and that person was later found to be innocent....

what would you say to the family of that person?"

can I ask a question,,,,

if a convicted murderer gets life but only serves 20 years and comes out and kills again.

what would you say to the victims family.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *icky999Man
over a year ago

warrington

some crazy points being made. the only valid argument against is wrongful conviction.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

Rightly or wrongly in the Old days Rapists and Kiddy fiddlers were fair game in Prison and used to take abuse daily.

Those days are long gone,and they now have a segregation wing for them all and can't be got at.

Which I do find a bit odd.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *anchestercubMan
over a year ago

manchester & NI

Bring back the death penalty if those who want to bring it back are happy to do the killing.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *anchestercubMan
over a year ago

manchester & NI


"Works great in America. Nobody ever kills anybody there."

That's the best example of how the death penalty is not a deterrent.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"OP I am assuming that you are in favour of the death sentence? The death sentence is barbbaric and favoured by people who confuse justice with vengeance. Much like IS, which is ironic considering elsewhere this morning you have criticised IS for the way they treat criminals?

You are quite confused aren;t you?

Why are you assuming? You know what they say about don't assume, it makes....

Well I'm assuming based on the wording of your post. And this is confirmed by your subsequent contributions on this thread?

Well you shouldn't assume. I advocate its use but only in the most extreme cases and where there are no doubts and no mitigation

look up the Stefan Kiszko case..

he would using your thinking have been murdered by the state based on him being totally innocent..

if its a case of killing just one innocent person then the risk is too high even if the ones where the guilt is proven..

I know the case and I have never said it should be used on him. He wasn't proven guilty beyond any doubt, though there would have been mitigation if he had been guilty (his low IQ).

Thankfully he was later cleared

At no point have I suggested he and his like should be

So who should and on what criteria?

Can you expand on what constitutes 'beyond any doubt'? Why are Hindlay Brady and Nielson (they are other examples you've cited) guilty beyond any doubt?

Lee Rigbys killers were caught on camera doing what they did. How can any doubt be applied to them?

It can't. Of course it ods possible to be guilty beyond any doubt. But those circumstances are very unusual. If someone is going to advocate the death sentence for those giuilty beyond any doubt then it follows they should be able to quantify what constitutes that in broader terms"

Simple. Where there's no doubt. No doubt about Hindley, Brady, the killers of Lee Rigby, Fred West. Execute them

What would you do with them?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"Time to reintroduce the death penalty? And, if so, for what offences?"

For those who society will never release to start with.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *its_n_piecesCouple
over a year ago


"So why not try to debate and show me why having no death penalty is better than executing the very worst killers in our society? "

timothy evans

robert green

henry berry

lawrence hill

donna anthony

sally clark

boys err burrill

mahmood hussein mattan

angela cannings

michael shirley

victor neaton

andrew evans

sion jenkins

winston silcott

william herbert wallace

derek bentley

stephen downing

judith ward

sean hodgson

paul blackburn

michael o'brian

barry george

suzanne holdsworth

barri white

eddie gilfoyle

sam hallam

oscar slater

steven miller

tony paris

yusef abdullahi

wayne darvell

paul darvell

"birmingham 6"

"bridgewater 4"

"guildford 4"

"maguire 7"

etc. etc. etc.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"Rightly or wrongly in the Old days Rapists and Kiddy fiddlers were fair game in Prison and used to take abuse daily.

Those days are long gone,and they now have a segregation wing for them all and can't be got at.

Which I do find a bit odd."

Not true. Have you worked in a prison?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"Works great in America. Nobody ever kills anybody there.

That's the best example of how the death penalty is not a deterrent. "

But you could argue prison isn't a deterrent either,,,not sure what this proves/disproves?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"Works great in America. Nobody ever kills anybody there.

That's the best example of how the death penalty is not a deterrent. "

it might not deter every one. but it must deter some. must.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"So why not try to debate and show me why having no death penalty is better than executing the very worst killers in our society?

timothy evans

robert green

henry berry

lawrence hill

donna anthony

sally clark

boys err burrill

mahmood hussein mattan

angela cannings

michael shirley

victor neaton

andrew evans

sion jenkins

winston silcott

william herbert wallace

derek bentley

stephen downing

judith ward

sean hodgson

paul blackburn

michael o'brian

barry george

suzanne holdsworth

barri white

eddie gilfoyle

sam hallam

oscar slater

steven miller

tony paris

yusef abdullahi

wayne darvell

paul darvell

"birmingham 6"

"bridgewater 4"

"guildford 4"

"maguire 7"

etc. etc. etc.

"

None of whom were guilty without any doubt

Most were fitted up by the police

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *anchestercubMan
over a year ago

manchester & NI


"Works great in America. Nobody ever kills anybody there.

That's the best example of how the death penalty is not a deterrent.

But you could argue prison isn't a deterrent either,,,not sure what this proves/disproves? "

It proves that bringing it back wouldn't be a deterrent, but we need to do something with them so keep things as they are.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *es-sMan
over a year ago

Rugby

No death penalty but life should mean LIFE

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *anchestercubMan
over a year ago

manchester & NI


"So why not try to debate and show me why having no death penalty is better than executing the very worst killers in our society?

timothy evans

robert green

henry berry

lawrence hill

donna anthony

sally clark

boys err burrill

mahmood hussein mattan

angela cannings

michael shirley

victor neaton

andrew evans

sion jenkins

winston silcott

william herbert wallace

derek bentley

stephen downing

judith ward

sean hodgson

paul blackburn

michael o'brian

barry george

suzanne holdsworth

barri white

eddie gilfoyle

sam hallam

oscar slater

steven miller

tony paris

yusef abdullahi

wayne darvell

paul darvell

"birmingham 6"

"bridgewater 4"

"guildford 4"

"maguire 7"

etc. etc. etc.

None of whom were guilty without any doubt

Most were fitted up by the police "

Was that known at the time they were convicted?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"OP I am assuming that you are in favour of the death sentence? The death sentence is barbbaric and favoured by people who confuse justice with vengeance. Much like IS, which is ironic considering elsewhere this morning you have criticised IS for the way they treat criminals?

You are quite confused aren;t you?

Why are you assuming? You know what they say about don't assume, it makes....

Well I'm assuming based on the wording of your post. And this is confirmed by your subsequent contributions on this thread?

Well you shouldn't assume. I advocate its use but only in the most extreme cases and where there are no doubts and no mitigation

look up the Stefan Kiszko case..

he would using your thinking have been murdered by the state based on him being totally innocent..

if its a case of killing just one innocent person then the risk is too high even if the ones where the guilt is proven..

I know the case and I have never said it should be used on him. He wasn't proven guilty beyond any doubt, though there would have been mitigation if he had been guilty (his low IQ).

Thankfully he was later cleared

At no point have I suggested he and his like should be

So who should and on what criteria?

Can you expand on what constitutes 'beyond any doubt'? Why are Hindlay Brady and Nielson (they are other examples you've cited) guilty beyond any doubt?

Lee Rigbys killers were caught on camera doing what they did. How can any doubt be applied to them?

It can't. Of course it ods possible to be guilty beyond any doubt. But those circumstances are very unusual. If someone is going to advocate the death sentence for those giuilty beyond any doubt then it follows they should be able to quantify what constitutes that in broader terms

Simple. Where there's no doubt. No doubt about Hindley, Brady, the killers of Lee Rigby, Fred West. Execute them

What would you do with them?"

As I;ve said before Brady is detained under the mental health act. To advocate the deathn= of someone in those circumstances regardless of crime is pretty sick. And yoi=u have ignored the previous question as to why you think it is okay.

As for the others, what part of their sentences do you feel were or are inadequate?

Again I ask what would the death sentence actually achieve? Surely if you advocate it you can justify it? It doesn't act as a deterrent, it is proven in America to not make financial sense. So what benefit would it bring to our society?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"Rightly or wrongly in the Old days Rapists and Kiddy fiddlers were fair game in Prison and used to take abuse daily.

Those days are long gone,and they now have a segregation wing for them all and can't be got at.

Which I do find a bit odd.

Not true. Have you worked in a prison?"

No I haven't worked in a Prison,but I can assure you I know.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *its_n_piecesCouple
over a year ago


"So why not try to debate and show me why having no death penalty is better than executing the very worst killers in our society?

timothy evans

robert green

henry berry

lawrence hill

donna anthony

sally clark

boys err burrill

mahmood hussein mattan

angela cannings

michael shirley

victor neaton

andrew evans

sion jenkins

winston silcott

william herbert wallace

derek bentley

stephen downing

judith ward

sean hodgson

paul blackburn

michael o'brian

barry george

suzanne holdsworth

barri white

eddie gilfoyle

sam hallam

oscar slater

steven miller

tony paris

yusef abdullahi

wayne darvell

paul darvell

"birmingham 6"

"bridgewater 4"

"guildford 4"

"maguire 7"

etc. etc. etc.

None of whom were guilty without any doubt

Most were fitted up by the police "

at the time of conviction all of them were guilty without doubt. as said previously, it's not possible for them to have been given custodial scentences otherwise

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *anchestercubMan
over a year ago

manchester & NI


"Rightly or wrongly in the Old days Rapists and Kiddy fiddlers were fair game in Prison and used to take abuse daily.

Those days are long gone,and they now have a segregation wing for them all and can't be got at.

Which I do find a bit odd.

Not true. Have you worked in a prison?

No I haven't worked in a Prison,but I can assure you I know."

Have you been imprisoned?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"So why not try to debate and show me why having no death penalty is better than executing the very worst killers in our society?

timothy evans

robert green

henry berry

lawrence hill

donna anthony

sally clark

boys err burrill

mahmood hussein mattan

angela cannings

michael shirley

victor neaton

andrew evans

sion jenkins

winston silcott

william herbert wallace

derek bentley

stephen downing

judith ward

sean hodgson

paul blackburn

michael o'brian

barry george

suzanne holdsworth

barri white

eddie gilfoyle

sam hallam

oscar slater

steven miller

tony paris

yusef abdullahi

wayne darvell

paul darvell

"birmingham 6"

"bridgewater 4"

"guildford 4"

"maguire 7"

etc. etc. etc.

None of whom were guilty without any doubt

Most were fitted up by the police "

So if you accept that someone can be fitted up by the police does it not follow that they could be fitted up beyond any doubt?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

The danger with the death penalty is you can't trust the Police nor forensics to catch the right person or even stick to proper legal procedure.

DNA is seen as a magic bullet for cold cases but hat cases it can be planted far easier than fingerprints could.

Coppers have a moral bypass on high profile jobs with some twat at the home office demanding an arrest.

If the Rozzers did the job right and the evidence was proven beyond any reasonable doubt I'd top every single child molester child killer serial rapist serial killer pimp and drug trafficker.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *L RogueMan
over a year ago

London


"Time to reintroduce the death penalty? And, if so, for what offences?

can i ask a question.....

if you to reintroduce the death penalty OP... and you killed someone, and that person was later found to be innocent....

what would you say to the family of that person?"

and that's is why it wouldn't work.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

Death penalty is an easy way out, but prison is an easy ride. Make prison more of a punishment I'd say, they receive toomany luxuries

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

How about we introduce the right to demand trial by combat

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"Death penalty is an easy way out, but prison is an easy ride. Make prison more of a punishment I'd say, they receive toomany luxuries "

How is it an easy ride?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"Rightly or wrongly in the Old days Rapists and Kiddy fiddlers were fair game in Prison and used to take abuse daily.

Those days are long gone,and they now have a segregation wing for them all and can't be got at.

Which I do find a bit odd.

Not true. Have you worked in a prison?

No I haven't worked in a Prison,but I can assure you I know."

Well I have and know differently

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *anchestercubMan
over a year ago

manchester & NI


"How about we introduce the right to demand trial by combat "

My chainmail is off being resewn and my shield needs recovered but I'm on a budget.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"I'm for it under special circumstances where the offenders guilt has been proven beyond doubt.

the cardiff three's case was "proved beyond doubt" at the time ..... turns out it wasn't them at all .... and there's plenty more cases such as this .... you're idea is un-workable"

How many years ago was that?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *uckandbunnyCouple
over a year ago

In your bed

Death penalty as an option given to those with life sentences.

Live life in prison for ever or death penalty.

Not like in the USA.just a simple room doctor maybe family and the prisoner plus guards.

No victims present no revenge aspect.

Choosing it themselves takes away the risk to the innocent.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"Death penalty is an easy way out, but prison is an easy ride. Make prison more of a punishment I'd say, they receive toomany luxuries

How is it an easy ride?"

Everything is free. They get free education, free food, no bills to pay. On "good behaviour" they get rewarded with items. Yet an elderly member of society has to pay £600 plus a week, to be looked after in a care home.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"Rightly or wrongly in the Old days Rapists and Kiddy fiddlers were fair game in Prison and used to take abuse daily.

Those days are long gone,and they now have a segregation wing for them all and can't be got at.

Which I do find a bit odd.

Not true. Have you worked in a prison?

No I haven't worked in a Prison,but I can assure you I know.

Well I have and know differently "

Aylesbury has

Woodhill has

Grendon is dedicated to it sure there is one in Nottinghamshire

Poor coper and Vp wings are in most jails.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"Although i do think peados and the like deserve the death sentence and also lee rigbys killers it does seem to quick a punishment. Much more of a punishment would be solitary confinment for the rest of there lives

Peados should all be put in a large room together with 1 slice of bread a day each only 1 toilet so they have to drink toilet water and a very sharp knife "

Even those who were themselves abused as children?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"it wont ever work as a 'deterrent', its barbaric, its fallible and will lead to innocent people being executed..

and for some its too easy an option, let them rot and die within..

"
At massive expense to the tax payer whilst they live comfortably with three well balanced meals per day an x box and free gym etc

They are hardly breaking rocks....

Hang murderers terrorists and peados

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"Rightly or wrongly in the Old days Rapists and Kiddy fiddlers were fair game in Prison and used to take abuse daily.

Those days are long gone,and they now have a segregation wing for them all and can't be got at.

Which I do find a bit odd.

Not true. Have you worked in a prison?

No I haven't worked in a Prison,but I can assure you I know.

Well I have and know differently "

I think rule 43. segregation for own protection is the reference. but its not just for Rapists and Kiddy. fiddlers.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *its_n_piecesCouple
over a year ago


"I'm for it under special circumstances where the offenders guilt has been proven beyond doubt.

the cardiff three's case was "proved beyond doubt" at the time ..... turns out it wasn't them at all .... and there's plenty more cases such as this .... you're idea is un-workable

How many years ago was that?"

what does it matter? suffice to say it was within our adult lifetime. the fact is the men still served time, but the horrific nature of the murder would have seen them executed.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *andsonjohnMan
over a year ago

in the eye of the storm

There been a fair bit written in here about prison sentences or the death sentence being a deterrent or not.

Neither are meant as a deterrent their punishments for a crime meant to give justice to the victim of the crime .

America has the death sentence because it believes that's the best way to give justice to the victims who can't speak for themselves for obvious reasons and to the families of the victims .

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"it wont ever work as a 'deterrent', its barbaric, its fallible and will lead to innocent people being executed..

and for some its too easy an option, let them rot and die within..

At massive expense to the tax payer whilst they live comfortably with -three well balanced meals per day an x box and free gym etc

They are hardly breaking rocks....

Hang murderers terrorists and peados"

Receiving this kind of lifestyle in prison, makes you wonder why they can't understand that there's a high re-offending rate

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

Yes.

New capital offences to include :

Buying footwear from Shoe Zone

Buying 'ornaments' & 'art' from B&M

Men wearing Uggs (women to receive 50 lashes)

Hikers using 2 sticks to walk up a town centre high street

Anyone caught pulling a tourer caravan during peak traffic

Check out staff who ask 'is that all today ?'

and last but certainly not least

The next person to start a 'muslims are bad' thread

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *anchestercubMan
over a year ago

manchester & NI


"Yes.

New capital offences to include :

Buying footwear from Shoe Zone

Buying 'ornaments' & 'art' from B&M

Men wearing Uggs (women to receive 50 lashes)

Hikers using 2 sticks to walk up a town centre high street

Anyone caught pulling a tourer caravan during peak traffic

Check out staff who ask 'is that all today ?'

and last but certainly not least

The next person to start a 'muslims are bad' thread

"

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *parkle1974Woman
over a year ago

Leeds

If someone is caught stealing chop off their finger and keep going if they don't learn, if a rapist is caught chop off their penis or stitch up their lady parts.

Prisons are absolutely no deterrent these days

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"Although i do think peados and the like deserve the death sentence and also lee rigbys killers it does seem to quick a punishment. Much more of a punishment would be solitary confinment for the rest of there lives

Peados should all be put in a large room together with 1 slice of bread a day each only 1 toilet so they have to drink toilet water and a very sharp knife

Even those who were themselves abused as children?"

The fact that most people seem to ignore

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"If someone is caught stealing chop off their finger and keep going if they don't learn, if a rapist is caught chop off their penis or stitch up their lady parts.

Prisons are absolutely no deterrent these days"

You should move to syria

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *its_n_piecesCouple
over a year ago


"it wont ever work as a 'deterrent', its barbaric, its fallible and will lead to innocent people being executed..

and for some its too easy an option, let them rot and die within..

At massive expense to the tax payer whilst they live comfortably with -three well balanced meals per day an x box and free gym etc

They are hardly breaking rocks....

Hang murderers terrorists and peados

Receiving this kind of lifestyle in prison, makes you wonder why they can't understand that there's a high re-offending rate "

so what is the current re-offending rate? and how high is it i comparisson to lets say 1985?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"it wont ever work as a 'deterrent', its barbaric, its fallible and will lead to innocent people being executed..

and for some its too easy an option, let them rot and die within..

At massive expense to the tax payer whilst they live comfortably with -three well balanced meals per day an x box and free gym etc

They are hardly breaking rocks....

Hang murderers terrorists and peados

Receiving this kind of lifestyle in prison, makes you wonder why they can't understand that there's a high re-offending rate

so what is the current re-offending rate? and how high is it i comparisson to lets say 1985?"

And how does it relate to the reoffending rate in areas like scandanavia? And how doe the prison sytem there compare to ours?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *parkle1974Woman
over a year ago

Leeds


"If someone is caught stealing chop off their finger and keep going if they don't learn, if a rapist is caught chop off their penis or stitch up their lady parts.

Prisons are absolutely no deterrent these days

You should move to syria"

Why.......it would certainly make people think about re-offending. I know first hand that people think prison is a joke in this country, some re-offenders treat it like a holiday!!!!!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *anchestercubMan
over a year ago

manchester & NI


"If someone is caught stealing chop off their finger and keep going if they don't learn, if a rapist is caught chop off their penis or stitch up their lady parts.

Prisons are absolutely no deterrent these days

You should move to syria

Why.......it would certainly make people think about re-offending. I know first hand that people think prison is a joke in this country, some re-offenders treat it like a holiday!!!!!"

So the first solution you come to about prison reform is killing people?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *andsonjohnMan
over a year ago

in the eye of the storm


"Although i do think peados and the like deserve the death sentence and also lee rigbys killers it does seem to quick a punishment. Much more of a punishment would be solitary confinment for the rest of there lives

Peados should all be put in a large room together with 1 slice of bread a day each only 1 toilet so they have to drink toilet water and a very sharp knife

Even those who were themselves abused as children?"

Your argument is flawed in my opinion because of this simple fact what about all the others that are abused as children who don't go on to be abusers .

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *parkle1974Woman
over a year ago

Leeds


"If someone is caught stealing chop off their finger and keep going if they don't learn, if a rapist is caught chop off their penis or stitch up their lady parts.

Prisons are absolutely no deterrent these days

You should move to syria

Why.......it would certainly make people think about re-offending. I know first hand that people think prison is a joke in this country, some re-offenders treat it like a holiday!!!!!

So the first solution you come to about prison reform is killing people? "

Where did I ever say "kill someone"??????

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *parkle1974Woman
over a year ago

Leeds


"Although i do think peados and the like deserve the death sentence and also lee rigbys killers it does seem to quick a punishment. Much more of a punishment would be solitary confinment for the rest of there lives

Peados should all be put in a large room together with 1 slice of bread a day each only 1 toilet so they have to drink toilet water and a very sharp knife

Even those who were themselves abused as children?"

Not all victims of child abuse turn out to be abusers in their adult life

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"it wont ever work as a 'deterrent', its barbaric, its fallible and will lead to innocent people being executed..

and for some its too easy an option, let them rot and die within..

At massive expense to the tax payer whilst they live comfortably with -three well balanced meals per day an x box and free gym etc

They are hardly breaking rocks....

Hang murderers terrorists and peados

Receiving this kind of lifestyle in prison, makes you wonder why they can't understand that there's a high re-offending rate

so what is the current re-offending rate? and how high is it i comparisson to lets say 1985?

And how does it relate to the reoffending rate in areas like scandanavia? And how doe the prison sytem there compare to ours?"

According to the open justice web site:

59% reoffend if their sentence was less than 12 months

37% for sentences between 1 and 4 years

26% for sentences between 4 and 10 years

18% for sentences more than 10 years

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"There been a fair bit written in here about prison sentences or the death sentence being a deterrent or not.

Neither are meant as a deterrent their punishments for a crime meant to give justice to the victim of the crime .

America has the death sentence because it believes that's the best way to give justice to the victims who can't speak for themselves for obvious reasons and to the families of the victims . "
.

I just don't belive that killing someone that killed your child is the best way for someone to "feel better" about the crime!

I've got no problem whatsoever with breaking rocks in a quarry if it was proved that this deterred further crime

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *icky999Man
over a year ago

warrington


"Death penalty is an easy way out, but prison is an easy ride. Make prison more of a punishment I'd say, they receive toomany luxuries

How is it an easy ride?

Everything is free. They get free education, free food, no bills to pay. On "good behaviour" they get rewarded with items. Yet an elderly member of society has to pay £600 plus a week, to be looked after in a care home. "

many people do have a better life in prison than outside.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *its_n_piecesCouple
over a year ago


"it wont ever work as a 'deterrent', its barbaric, its fallible and will lead to innocent people being executed..

and for some its too easy an option, let them rot and die within..

At massive expense to the tax payer whilst they live comfortably with -three well balanced meals per day an x box and free gym etc

They are hardly breaking rocks....

Hang murderers terrorists and peados

Receiving this kind of lifestyle in prison, makes you wonder why they can't understand that there's a high re-offending rate

so what is the current re-offending rate? and how high is it i comparisson to lets say 1985?

And how does it relate to the reoffending rate in areas like scandanavia? And how doe the prison sytem there compare to ours?

According to the open justice web site:

59% reoffend if their sentence was less than 12 months

37% for sentences between 1 and 4 years

26% for sentences between 4 and 10 years

18% for sentences more than 10 years"

ok .... from the same source as you've quoted ...

"

Mythbuster: punishment and rehabilitation

'Prison is the best place for all offenders' You be the Judge

Serious offenders receive serious prison sentences which are appropriate for the crimes they have committed. As they will be in prison for longer, there is time for them not only to be punished but also rehabilitated before they are released on licence.

Offenders who commit less serious offences can only be given shorter prison sentences or a community sentence - sentencing must be appropriate to the seriousness of the offence. Offenders on short prison sentences are almost three times more likely to commit another crime, and one of the reasons for this is the lack of time to deliver effective rehabilitation.

However, offenders who receive community sentences are less likely to offend than those on short prison sentences. So prison isn't always the best way to cut reoffending and make communities safer.

'Courts give community sentences because prisons are full'

Prison is the best place for serious offenders. There will always be places for anyone whose crime is so serious or whose behaviour cannot be tackled by anything other than a prison sentence.

But less serious criminals often receive community sentences as these are the most effective sentences that could be given for the offence committed. Three out of five short-term prisoners will reoffend within a year, which makes them more likely to reoffend than those with a similar profile who received community sentences.

'Offenders on probation walk free'

Offenders who have just been released from prison on licence or are serving their sentence within the community are closely supervised by the probation service.

Probation officers ensure that offenders obey the requirements of their particular sentence so they are punished, but also ensure that the causes of their offending are addressed. This could involve various requirements, including getting treatment for a substance misuse or mental health issue, the use of a curfew, or unpaid work.

'Prison sentences are punishment; community sentences aren't'

Sentences have five purposes: to punish offenders, to reform and rehabilitate offenders, to ensure offenders make up for their crime, to reduce future crime and to protect the public.

Community sentences deliver punishment as well as rehabilitation. They can deprive offenders of their freedom by imposing a curfew monitored using an electronic tag, restricting their actions or behaviours, or requiring them to report to a probation officer on a regular basis. Failing any of these requirements could lead to a return to court and time in prison for a relatively minor offence.

Many prison sentences, as well as being a punishment, will also include rehabilitative requirements to help offenders address the behaviour which leads them to reoffend, like managing their anger or tackling alcoholism and drug abuse.

'Prisoners lead a life of luxury'

Prisoners' lives are highly regulated, spending some 25 hours a week on average on purposeful activity, including work, education and training, and programmes addressing their offending, including drug and alcohol treatment. Some 9,000 prisoners are employed every day in prison industries across 400 sites. And current proposals would see prisoners working a 40 hour week.

Basic rights to food and clothing are met, but other privileges must be earned through good behaviour and adherence to prison rules.

The right to have a TV in your cell must be earned, and the cost of the TV paid by the prisoner. TVs are basic 14" models with a small number of channels. Subscription channels like Sky Sports are not allowed. Games consoles are only provided to prisoners with maximum privileges due to their behaviour and performance, and must be paid for by the prisoner. Games rated 18 are not allowed in any circumstances."

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"Rightly or wrongly in the Old days Rapists and Kiddy fiddlers were fair game in Prison and used to take abuse daily.

Those days are long gone,and they now have a segregation wing for them all and can't be got at.

Which I do find a bit odd.

Not true. Have you worked in a prison?

No I haven't worked in a Prison,but I can assure you I know.

Well I have and know differently

Aylesbury has

Woodhill has

Grendon is dedicated to it sure there is one in Nottinghamshire

Poor coper and Vp wings are in most jails. "

HMP Whatton is full of sex offenders.

However, there aren't enough places and many have to live in other prisons within the general population. And then they are at risk. Certainly they will be placed in Segregation if they are deemed at risk but sometimes not in time

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

I work with offenders on what is still, incorrectly, refered to as community service. The statistics around re-offending are odd as there are a large number of people who commit crimes like d*unk driving, criminal damage, common assault and the like who's offence is a blip on their otherwise blemish free life. They would never offend again being mortified by the mistake they have made.

However, there are a large number of offenders who are career petty criminals who do not see the sentencing regime as a deterrent. We need harsher sentencing for those who re-offend, including prison sentences. I know from talking to current offenders that they will carry on offending as long as they know that they can still be out and about, community sentence or not.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *andsonjohnMan
over a year ago

in the eye of the storm


"There been a fair bit written in here about prison sentences or the death sentence being a deterrent or not.

Neither are meant as a deterrent their punishments for a crime meant to give justice to the victim of the crime .

America has the death sentence because it believes that's the best way to give justice to the victims who can't speak for themselves for obvious reasons and to the families of the victims . .

I just don't belive that killing someone that killed your child is the best way for someone to "feel better" about the crime!

I've got no problem whatsoever with breaking rocks in a quarry if it was proved that this deterred further crime"

I admire your stance and if I had the power I'd give the victims and their families the choice of punishment.

I am squarely coming at this argument from the point of _iew of justice for the victims I think you are to which means there's no right or wrong answer . All I know is this what ever justice a victim demanded with in reason by that I mean no silly over the top stuff like cut off his hand for stealing my garden gnome I'd most likely support .

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"it wont ever work as a 'deterrent', its barbaric, its fallible and will lead to innocent people being executed..

and for some its too easy an option, let them rot and die within..

At massive expense to the tax payer whilst they live comfortably with -three well balanced meals per day an x box and free gym etc

They are hardly breaking rocks....

Hang murderers terrorists and peados

Receiving this kind of lifestyle in prison, makes you wonder why they can't understand that there's a high re-offending rate

so what is the current re-offending rate? and how high is it i comparisson to lets say 1985?

And how does it relate to the reoffending rate in areas like scandanavia? And how doe the prison sytem there compare to ours?

According to the open justice web site:

59% reoffend if their sentence was less than 12 months

37% for sentences between 1 and 4 years

26% for sentences between 4 and 10 years

18% for sentences more than 10 years

ok .... from the same source as you've quoted ...

"

Mythbuster: punishment and rehabilitation

'Prison is the best place for all offenders' You be the Judge

Serious offenders receive serious prison sentences which are appropriate for the crimes they have committed. As they will be in prison for longer, there is time for them not only to be punished but also rehabilitated before they are released on licence.

Offenders who commit less serious offences can only be given shorter prison sentences or a community sentence - sentencing must be appropriate to the seriousness of the offence. Offenders on short prison sentences are almost three times more likely to commit another crime, and one of the reasons for this is the lack of time to deliver effective rehabilitation.

However, offenders who receive community sentences are less likely to offend than those on short prison sentences. So prison isn't always the best way to cut reoffending and make communities safer.

'Courts give community sentences because prisons are full'

Prison is the best place for serious offenders. There will always be places for anyone whose crime is so serious or whose behaviour cannot be tackled by anything other than a prison sentence.

But less serious criminals often receive community sentences as these are the most effective sentences that could be given for the offence committed. Three out of five short-term prisoners will reoffend within a year, which makes them more likely to reoffend than those with a similar profile who received community sentences.

'Offenders on probation walk free'

Offenders who have just been released from prison on licence or are serving their sentence within the community are closely supervised by the probation service.

Probation officers ensure that offenders obey the requirements of their particular sentence so they are punished, but also ensure that the causes of their offending are addressed. This could involve various requirements, including getting treatment for a substance misuse or mental health issue, the use of a curfew, or unpaid work.

'Prison sentences are punishment; community sentences aren't'

Sentences have five purposes: to punish offenders, to reform and rehabilitate offenders, to ensure offenders make up for their crime, to reduce future crime and to protect the public.

Community sentences deliver punishment as well as rehabilitation. They can deprive offenders of their freedom by imposing a curfew monitored using an electronic tag, restricting their actions or behaviours, or requiring them to report to a probation officer on a regular basis. Failing any of these requirements could lead to a return to court and time in prison for a relatively minor offence.

Many prison sentences, as well as being a punishment, will also include rehabilitative requirements to help offenders address the behaviour which leads them to reoffend, like managing their anger or tackling alcoholism and drug abuse.

'Prisoners lead a life of luxury'

Prisoners' lives are highly regulated, spending some 25 hours a week on average on purposeful activity, including work, education and training, and programmes addressing their offending, including drug and alcohol treatment. Some 9,000 prisoners are employed every day in prison industries across 400 sites. And current proposals would see prisoners working a 40 hour week.

Basic rights to food and clothing are met, but other privileges must be earned through good behaviour and adherence to prison rules.

The right to have a TV in your cell must be earned, and the cost of the TV paid by the prisoner. TVs are basic 14" models with a small number of channels. Subscription channels like Sky Sports are not allowed. Games consoles are only provided to prisoners with maximum privileges due to their behaviour and performance, and must be paid for by the prisoner. Games rated 18 are not allowed in any circumstances.""

For the hours they work they are paid, so they can buy items like cigarettes, magazines, chocolates etc. The money they earn should be spent on their daily needs food and clothing; just like an elderly person is having to pay to have a roof over their head, be watched and have 3 meals a day and then with any luxuries they want they have to buy themselves!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

I'm against the death penalty because as others have said it's an easy way out. I understand why people think that some murderers or rapists deserve it, but how could you say that the murder of one person is worse than the murder of others? They are all someone's loved one that has been killed/raped whether they are 9 or 90. And what about those who are attacked so badly their lives have been robbed from them (brain damage/constant coma etc) their loved ones probably feel as though their attackers were almost worse than murderers so would deserve it too. Even 'lesser' crimes like fraud can lead to people losing everything (like that old lady who was conned out of her house and savings and left destitute) I imagine her family would have wanted the man that did it to pay too. It's just too hard to say who has an extreme case that would qualify for the death penalty and those that don't. Imagine your wife being murdered and being told my a judge that she wasn't murdered badly enough to deserve the death penalty?? So I am 100% against it, but I do think that our prison system needs a massive overhaul so that its more of a deterrent. Life should mean life. I think they should not be allowed any contact from the outside world (letters from home/TVs/computers etc) they should be kept in solitary condfinement in a blank room for the rest of their lives to contemplate what they did.

I would also have a two part sentence for all other crimes too. The first half of their sentence kept in iscolation with no stimulation or contact from home as a punishment for what they did. Then the second half designed for rehabilitation, where privilages can be earned. But no one would be let out early for good behaviour, just time added for bad behaviour. So if someone was sentenced to 5 years, they would serve all 5 years, 2.5 years in solitary, then 2.5 years rehabiliting (learning, job skills etc). I just think prison is too soft an option as it is at the moment.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *its_n_piecesCouple
over a year ago


"it wont ever work as a 'deterrent', its barbaric, its fallible and will lead to innocent people being executed..

and for some its too easy an option, let them rot and die within..

At massive expense to the tax payer whilst they live comfortably with -three well balanced meals per day an x box and free gym etc

They are hardly breaking rocks....

Hang murderers terrorists and peados

Receiving this kind of lifestyle in prison, makes you wonder why they can't understand that there's a high re-offending rate

so what is the current re-offending rate? and how high is it i comparisson to lets say 1985?

And how does it relate to the reoffending rate in areas like scandanavia? And how doe the prison sytem there compare to ours?

According to the open justice web site:

59% reoffend if their sentence was less than 12 months

37% for sentences between 1 and 4 years

26% for sentences between 4 and 10 years

18% for sentences more than 10 years

ok .... from the same source as you've quoted ...

"

Mythbuster: punishment and rehabilitation

'Prison is the best place for all offenders' You be the Judge

Serious offenders receive serious prison sentences which are appropriate for the crimes they have committed. As they will be in prison for longer, there is time for them not only to be punished but also rehabilitated before they are released on licence.

Offenders who commit less serious offences can only be given shorter prison sentences or a community sentence - sentencing must be appropriate to the seriousness of the offence. Offenders on short prison sentences are almost three times more likely to commit another crime, and one of the reasons for this is the lack of time to deliver effective rehabilitation.

However, offenders who receive community sentences are less likely to offend than those on short prison sentences. So prison isn't always the best way to cut reoffending and make communities safer.

'Courts give community sentences because prisons are full'

Prison is the best place for serious offenders. There will always be places for anyone whose crime is so serious or whose behaviour cannot be tackled by anything other than a prison sentence.

But less serious criminals often receive community sentences as these are the most effective sentences that could be given for the offence committed. Three out of five short-term prisoners will reoffend within a year, which makes them more likely to reoffend than those with a similar profile who received community sentences.

'Offenders on probation walk free'

Offenders who have just been released from prison on licence or are serving their sentence within the community are closely supervised by the probation service.

Probation officers ensure that offenders obey the requirements of their particular sentence so they are punished, but also ensure that the causes of their offending are addressed. This could involve various requirements, including getting treatment for a substance misuse or mental health issue, the use of a curfew, or unpaid work.

'Prison sentences are punishment; community sentences aren't'

Sentences have five purposes: to punish offenders, to reform and rehabilitate offenders, to ensure offenders make up for their crime, to reduce future crime and to protect the public.

Community sentences deliver punishment as well as rehabilitation. They can deprive offenders of their freedom by imposing a curfew monitored using an electronic tag, restricting their actions or behaviours, or requiring them to report to a probation officer on a regular basis. Failing any of these requirements could lead to a return to court and time in prison for a relatively minor offence.

Many prison sentences, as well as being a punishment, will also include rehabilitative requirements to help offenders address the behaviour which leads them to reoffend, like managing their anger or tackling alcoholism and drug abuse.

'Prisoners lead a life of luxury'

Prisoners' lives are highly regulated, spending some 25 hours a week on average on purposeful activity, including work, education and training, and programmes addressing their offending, including drug and alcohol treatment. Some 9,000 prisoners are employed every day in prison industries across 400 sites. And current proposals would see prisoners working a 40 hour week.

Basic rights to food and clothing are met, but other privileges must be earned through good behaviour and adherence to prison rules.

The right to have a TV in your cell must be earned, and the cost of the TV paid by the prisoner. TVs are basic 14" models with a small number of channels. Subscription channels like Sky Sports are not allowed. Games consoles are only provided to prisoners with maximum privileges due to their behaviour and performance, and must be paid for by the prisoner. Games rated 18 are not allowed in any circumstances."

For the hours they work they are paid, so they can buy items like cigarettes, magazines, chocolates etc. The money they earn should be spent on their daily needs food and clothing; just like an elderly person is having to pay to have a roof over their head, be watched and have 3 meals a day and then with any luxuries they want they have to buy themselves! "

comparing the current failings of the geriatric welfare system with the penal system is misleading at best.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"it wont ever work as a 'deterrent', its barbaric, its fallible and will lead to innocent people being executed..

and for some its too easy an option, let them rot and die within..

At massive expense to the tax payer whilst they live comfortably with -three well balanced meals per day an x box and free gym etc

They are hardly breaking rocks....

Hang murderers terrorists and peados

Receiving this kind of lifestyle in prison, makes you wonder why they can't understand that there's a high re-offending rate

so what is the current re-offending rate? and how high is it i comparisson to lets say 1985?

And how does it relate to the reoffending rate in areas like scandanavia? And how doe the prison sytem there compare to ours?

According to the open justice web site:

59% reoffend if their sentence was less than 12 months

37% for sentences between 1 and 4 years

26% for sentences between 4 and 10 years

18% for sentences more than 10 years

ok .... from the same source as you've quoted ...

"

Mythbuster: punishment and rehabilitation

'Prison is the best place for all offenders' You be the Judge

Serious offenders receive serious prison sentences which are appropriate for the crimes they have committed. As they will be in prison for longer, there is time for them not only to be punished but also rehabilitated before they are released on licence.

Offenders who commit less serious offences can only be given shorter prison sentences or a community sentence - sentencing must be appropriate to the seriousness of the offence. Offenders on short prison sentences are almost three times more likely to commit another crime, and one of the reasons for this is the lack of time to deliver effective rehabilitation.

However, offenders who receive community sentences are less likely to offend than those on short prison sentences. So prison isn't always the best way to cut reoffending and make communities safer.

'Courts give community sentences because prisons are full'

Prison is the best place for serious offenders. There will always be places for anyone whose crime is so serious or whose behaviour cannot be tackled by anything other than a prison sentence.

But less serious criminals often receive community sentences as these are the most effective sentences that could be given for the offence committed. Three out of five short-term prisoners will reoffend within a year, which makes them more likely to reoffend than those with a similar profile who received community sentences.

'Offenders on probation walk free'

Offenders who have just been released from prison on licence or are serving their sentence within the community are closely supervised by the probation service.

Probation officers ensure that offenders obey the requirements of their particular sentence so they are punished, but also ensure that the causes of their offending are addressed. This could involve various requirements, including getting treatment for a substance misuse or mental health issue, the use of a curfew, or unpaid work.

'Prison sentences are punishment; community sentences aren't'

Sentences have five purposes: to punish offenders, to reform and rehabilitate offenders, to ensure offenders make up for their crime, to reduce future crime and to protect the public.

Community sentences deliver punishment as well as rehabilitation. They can deprive offenders of their freedom by imposing a curfew monitored using an electronic tag, restricting their actions or behaviours, or requiring them to report to a probation officer on a regular basis. Failing any of these requirements could lead to a return to court and time in prison for a relatively minor offence.

Many prison sentences, as well as being a punishment, will also include rehabilitative requirements to help offenders address the behaviour which leads them to reoffend, like managing their anger or tackling alcoholism and drug abuse.

'Prisoners lead a life of luxury'

Prisoners' lives are highly regulated, spending some 25 hours a week on average on purposeful activity, including work, education and training, and programmes addressing their offending, including drug and alcohol treatment. Some 9,000 prisoners are employed every day in prison industries across 400 sites. And current proposals would see prisoners working a 40 hour week.

Basic rights to food and clothing are met, but other privileges must be earned through good behaviour and adherence to prison rules.

The right to have a TV in your cell must be earned, and the cost of the TV paid by the prisoner. TVs are basic 14" models with a small number of channels. Subscription channels like Sky Sports are not allowed. Games consoles are only provided to prisoners with maximum privileges due to their behaviour and performance, and must be paid for by the prisoner. Games rated 18 are not allowed in any circumstances."

For the hours they work they are paid, so they can buy items like cigarettes, magazines, chocolates etc. The money they earn should be spent on their daily needs food and clothing; just like an elderly person is having to pay to have a roof over their head, be watched and have 3 meals a day and then with any luxuries they want they have to buy themselves!

comparing the current failings of the geriatric welfare system with the penal system is misleading at best."

And speaks volumes about the people who make that comparison, because invariably they seem to think that worse treatment of prisoners is the better way to increase the distance between living standards rather than increase the living standards of our elderly

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *icky999Man
over a year ago

warrington


"

comparing the current failings of the geriatric welfare system with the penal system is misleading at best."

comparing prisoners lives to less of members of the population is quite reasonable.

why is it misleading? and what is it at worst?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"Although i do think peados and the like deserve the death sentence and also lee rigbys killers it does seem to quick a punishment. Much more of a punishment would be solitary confinment for the rest of there lives

Peados should all be put in a large room together with 1 slice of bread a day each only 1 toilet so they have to drink toilet water and a very sharp knife

Even those who were themselves abused as children?

Not all victims of child abuse turn out to be abusers in their adult life"

Of course not. But that doesnlt alter the fact that many abusers have been victimes

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *parkle1974Woman
over a year ago

Leeds


"Although i do think peados and the like deserve the death sentence and also lee rigbys killers it does seem to quick a punishment. Much more of a punishment would be solitary confinment for the rest of there lives

Peados should all be put in a large room together with 1 slice of bread a day each only 1 toilet so they have to drink toilet water and a very sharp knife

Even those who were themselves abused as children?

Not all victims of child abuse turn out to be abusers in their adult life

Of course not. But that doesnlt alter the fact that many abusers have been victimes"

And where did you get those statistics??

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

I disagree with the death penalty. However, I agree with the idea of America's 99 year prison sentences. I believe that if someone is sentanced to life in prison then that is exactly what they should get.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"I disagree with the death penalty. However, I agree with the idea of America's 99 year prison sentences. I believe that if someone is sentanced to life in prison then that is exactly what they should get."

But then you are moving away from the death penalty and the it's the judicial system that needs looking at.

Generally whatever sentence Joe Bloggs gets given nowadays with good behaviour they serve half(and most of the time will have their remarned to come off that also)

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"Although i do think peados and the like deserve the death sentence and also lee rigbys killers it does seem to quick a punishment. Much more of a punishment would be solitary confinment for the rest of there lives

Peados should all be put in a large room together with 1 slice of bread a day each only 1 toilet so they have to drink toilet water and a very sharp knife

Even those who were themselves abused as children?

Not all victims of child abuse turn out to be abusers in their adult life

Of course not. But that doesnlt alter the fact that many abusers have been victimes"

So your saying if the abuser has been a victim it's OK? ??? Surly being a victim you would know how it feels n wouldn't want it to happen to others????

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *its_n_piecesCouple
over a year ago


"I disagree with the death penalty. However, I agree with the idea of America's 99 year prison sentences. I believe that if someone is sentanced to life in prison then that is exactly what they should get."

it's for an independent judge to issue a sentence. if he sees fit to imprison someone untill they die he can pass a sentence of "whole life order". so we already have this.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"Although i do think peados and the like deserve the death sentence and also lee rigbys killers it does seem to quick a punishment. Much more of a punishment would be solitary confinment for the rest of there lives

Peados should all be put in a large room together with 1 slice of bread a day each only 1 toilet so they have to drink toilet water and a very sharp knife

Even those who were themselves abused as children?

Not all victims of child abuse turn out to be abusers in their adult life

Of course not. But that doesnlt alter the fact that many abusers have been victimes

So your saying if the abuser has been a victim it's OK? ??? Surly being a victim you would know how it feels n wouldn't want it to happen to others????"

Where did I say that?

I;m suggesting that looking at cause and effect os always a worthwhile exercise.

Though based on your previous post of locking them in the same cell, I realise that such an approach will be lost on you

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *parkle1974Woman
over a year ago

Leeds


"Although i do think peados and the like deserve the death sentence and also lee rigbys killers it does seem to quick a punishment. Much more of a punishment would be solitary confinment for the rest of there lives

Peados should all be put in a large room together with 1 slice of bread a day each only 1 toilet so they have to drink toilet water and a very sharp knife

Even those who were themselves abused as children?

Not all victims of child abuse turn out to be abusers in their adult life

Of course not. But that doesnlt alter the fact that many abusers have been victimes

So your saying if the abuser has been a victim it's OK? ??? Surly being a victim you would know how it feels n wouldn't want it to happen to others????

Where did I say that?

I;m suggesting that looking at cause and effect os always a worthwhile exercise.

Though based on your previous post of locking them in the same cell, I realise that such an approach will be lost on you"

The amount who go onto abuse others after being abused themselves will be outweighed by the number who don't. A lot of abusers say they were abused as kids in order to try and get the sympathy vote, I don't believe for one second that the majority were.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *anchestercubMan
over a year ago

manchester & NI


"If someone is caught stealing chop off their finger and keep going if they don't learn, if a rapist is caught chop off their penis or stitch up their lady parts.

Prisons are absolutely no deterrent these days

You should move to syria

Why.......it would certainly make people think about re-offending. I know first hand that people think prison is a joke in this country, some re-offenders treat it like a holiday!!!!!

So the first solution you come to about prison reform is killing people?

Where did I ever say "kill someone"?????? "

You didn't, I misread sorry.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"Although i do think peados and the like deserve the death sentence and also lee rigbys killers it does seem to quick a punishment. Much more of a punishment would be solitary confinment for the rest of there lives

Peados should all be put in a large room together with 1 slice of bread a day each only 1 toilet so they have to drink toilet water and a very sharp knife

Even those who were themselves abused as children?

Not all victims of child abuse turn out to be abusers in their adult life

Of course not. But that doesnlt alter the fact that many abusers have been victimes

So your saying if the abuser has been a victim it's OK? ??? Surly being a victim you would know how it feels n wouldn't want it to happen to others????"

Nope. Of course not. There have been few empirical surveys done on the subject. The common perception of "experts" seems to be that male victims do tend to perpetuate the crime. One survey of 835 crimes revealed that 35% of male offenders had been victims. No one excuses it but no one can excuse what was done to them either.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"Although i do think peados and the like deserve the death sentence and also lee rigbys killers it does seem to quick a punishment. Much more of a punishment would be solitary confinment for the rest of there lives

Peados should all be put in a large room together with 1 slice of bread a day each only 1 toilet so they have to drink toilet water and a very sharp knife

Even those who were themselves abused as children?

Not all victims of child abuse turn out to be abusers in their adult life

Of course not. But that doesnlt alter the fact that many abusers have been victimes

So your saying if the abuser has been a victim it's OK? ??? Surly being a victim you would know how it feels n wouldn't want it to happen to others????

Where did I say that?

I;m suggesting that looking at cause and effect os always a worthwhile exercise.

Though based on your previous post of locking them in the same cell, I realise that such an approach will be lost on you

The amount who go onto abuse others after being abused themselves will be outweighed by the number who don't. A lot of abusers say they were abused as kids in order to try and get the sympathy vote, I don't believe for one second that the majority were."

Did I say it was the majority?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

I'm against it in all circumstances. It doesn't work as a deterrent and I don't think it's appropriate for the state to extinguish life as punishment. Life in prison, throw away the key, whatever, but not execution.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *icky999Man
over a year ago

warrington


"Although i do think peados and the like deserve the death sentence and also lee rigbys killers it does seem to quick a punishment. Much more of a punishment would be solitary confinment for the rest of there lives

Peados should all be put in a large room together with 1 slice of bread a day each only 1 toilet so they have to drink toilet water and a very sharp knife

Even those who were themselves abused as children?

Not all victims of child abuse turn out to be abusers in their adult life

Of course not. But that doesnlt alter the fact that many abusers have been victimes

So your saying if the abuser has been a victim it's OK? ??? Surly being a victim you would know how it feels n wouldn't want it to happen to others????

Where did I say that?

I;m suggesting that looking at cause and effect os always a worthwhile exercise.

Though based on your previous post of locking them in the same cell, I realise that such an approach will be lost on you"

you didnt say it was ok but you did say it was a mitigating circumstance.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"Although i do think peados and the like deserve the death sentence and also lee rigbys killers it does seem to quick a punishment. Much more of a punishment would be solitary confinment for the rest of there lives

Peados should all be put in a large room together with 1 slice of bread a day each only 1 toilet so they have to drink toilet water and a very sharp knife

Even those who were themselves abused as children?

Not all victims of child abuse turn out to be abusers in their adult life

Of course not. But that doesnlt alter the fact that many abusers have been victimes

So your saying if the abuser has been a victim it's OK? ??? Surly being a victim you would know how it feels n wouldn't want it to happen to others????

Where did I say that?

I;m suggesting that looking at cause and effect os always a worthwhile exercise.

Though based on your previous post of locking them in the same cell, I realise that such an approach will be lost on you

you didnt say it was ok but you did say it was a mitigating circumstance. "

Where did I say that?

Abusers deserve to be punished, but they also deserve the opportunity and some arguably need the opportunity to be rehabilitated. And looking at the link between past experience and offences will help people in the future.

But regardless, the suggestion at the start of this post about how offenders should be treated is vile and indefensible

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *icky999Man
over a year ago

warrington


"Although i do think peados and the like deserve the death sentence and also lee rigbys killers it does seem to quick a punishment. Much more of a punishment would be solitary confinment for the rest of there lives

Peados should all be put in a large room together with 1 slice of bread a day each only 1 toilet so they have to drink toilet water and a very sharp knife

Even those who were themselves abused as children?

The fact that most people seem to ignore"

juuuust here

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"Although i do think peados and the like deserve the death sentence and also lee rigbys killers it does seem to quick a punishment. Much more of a punishment would be solitary confinment for the rest of there lives

Peados should all be put in a large room together with 1 slice of bread a day each only 1 toilet so they have to drink toilet water and a very sharp knife

Even those who were themselves abused as children?

The fact that most people seem to ignore

juuuust here "

How is that say it is mitigaring circumstances?

I acknowledged the previous post about paedophiles also being victims?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

Personally I don't believe it it, regardless if it's a job or not someone still had to push a button or whatever and end that persons life (regardless of what crime they commited, that person carrying out the penalty is still in essence ending another persons life). I'd much prefer to see the person suffer in prison for the rest of their lives. Just my opinion x

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

Chop bits off be pretty hard to rape someone if you had no cock

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

I haven't read the whole thread but can take a guess under what circumstances some would like to see it introduced.

I totally believe the death penalty has no place in a modern day civilised society.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *parkle1974Woman
over a year ago

Leeds


"Chop bits off be pretty hard to rape someone if you had no cock"

I said the same earlier and was told I should move to Syria

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *vsnikkiTV/TS
over a year ago

Limavady


"it wont ever work as a 'deterrent', its barbaric, its fallible and will lead to innocent people being executed..

and for some its too easy an option, let them rot and die within..

"

It works in America doesn't it?

Ahh.

I see your argument!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *at69driveMan
over a year ago

Hertford


"Time to reintroduce the death penalty? And, if so, for what offences?"
. Definitely against . What about the various miscarriages of justice ?. We would be hanging quite a few innocent people .

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *vsnikkiTV/TS
over a year ago

Limavady


"Personally I don't believe it it, regardless if it's a job or not someone still had to push a button or whatever and end that persons life (regardless of what crime they commited, that person carrying out the penalty is still in essence ending another persons life). I'd much prefer to see the person suffer in prison for the rest of their lives. Just my opinion x"

That way you can let them out after two years and elect them.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *at69driveMan
over a year ago

Hertford


"Time to reintroduce the death penalty? And, if so, for what offences?"
. The family backgrounds of those who committ murder can often be very tragic and some people fail to appreciate normal standards of behaviour

If you have ever visited anyone in prison you will appreciate that this should be sufficient punishment in itreself . They are horrible places

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

No it costs way too much to do it right. Be cheaper to house them forever in a special prison.

Also we still make mistakes

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

Exactly. What do you do if you execute the wrong person? It's happened.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"Rightly or wrongly in the Old days Rapists and Kiddy fiddlers were fair game in Prison and used to take abuse daily.

Those days are long gone,and they now have a segregation wing for them all and can't be got at.

Which I do find a bit odd.

Not true. Have you worked in a prison?

No I haven't worked in a Prison,but I can assure you I know."

My ex bro in law works in a prison, pedofiles and child killers are segregated. They have to for example call them 'mr Jones' not by first names.

Prisons are a very different place than years ago due to the human rights laws.

Do I agree with the death penalty I don't know?!.

Whilst at collage I followed a local case and went to a 'police' house behind a two way mirror I saw a child being inter_iewed by amazingly skilled professionals what I saw and heard from the child that day was I can only describe as mentally destroying I can still vividly see that child and hear it's words to this day.

That person who did that I feel should have been given a punishment like no other which I feel was the death penalty.

I don't believe anyone has the right to take another's life (lee rigby murderers) or take the innocence of a child. But there is a fine line, by having the death penalty I don't think it would determine behaviour of the lines of west or hindley those people don't care they did it for gratification.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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


"If someone is caught stealing chop off their finger and keep going if they don't learn, if a rapist is caught chop off their penis or stitch up their lady parts.

Prisons are absolutely no deterrent these days

You should move to syria

Why.......it would certainly make people think about re-offending. I know first hand that people think prison is a joke in this country, some re-offenders treat it like a holiday!!!!!"

See the 3 strikes rule in America proved quote well that ultra harsh sentences do not act as a deterrent.

Under the three strikes rule people have been sent to jail for life (as in proper life) for things such as stealing a cookie.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

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

The British judicial system is pathetic. Death penalty, possibly but only through DNA evidence in the most horrific crimes... Other than that shove them all on an island & let them look after themselves instead of spending hundreds of thousands of pounds looking after them, strip them of thier human rights as they have done to the victims or victims families

I worked within the CJS system for ten years & its pants

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *rightonsteveMan
over a year ago

Brighton - even Hove!

Let's kill this thread now

........T H E.......E N D..........

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *its_n_piecesCouple
over a year ago


"I worked within the CJS system for ten years & its pants "

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *its_n_piecesCouple
over a year ago


"I worked within the CJS system for ten years & its pants "

as did i. i worked on a murder case that ultimately became known by the appeal judge as "one of the most egregious miscarriages of justice in recent times".

proof that it's right and just for the UK to have no death penalty

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 
 

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


"If someone is caught stealing chop off their finger and keep going if they don't learn, if a rapist is caught chop off their penis or stitch up their lady parts.

Prisons are absolutely no deterrent these days

You should move to syria

Why.......it would certainly make people think about re-offending. I know first hand that people think prison is a joke in this country, some re-offenders treat it like a holiday!!!!!

See the 3 strikes rule in America proved quote well that ultra harsh sentences do not act as a deterrent.

Under the three strikes rule people have been sent to jail for life (as in proper life) for things such as stealing a cookie."

The 3 strikes rule is ridiculous. But there are also people in Brotish prisons with no release date for relatively minor offences

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
back to top