interestrateripoff Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2022147/Capital-punishment-People-power-forces-MPs-vote-death-penalty.html Vote would be first on capital punishment since 1998 Some Tories 'planning to vote yes to death penalty' MPs could be forced into the landmark poll if e-petition attracts 100,000 signatures Although isn't this a bit pointless as we've signed the European convention outlawing capital punishment? However the one aspect of capital punishment those in favour never discuss is how soul destroying it is for those charged with carrying out the act. Many of the hangmen suffered with drink problems and depression trying to come to terms with killing people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosh Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2022147/Capital-punishment-People-power-forces-MPs-vote-death-penalty.html Although isn't this a bit pointless as we've signed the European convention outlawing capital punishment? However the one aspect of capital punishment those in favour never discuss is how soul destroying it is for those charged with carrying out the act. Many of the hangmen suffered with drink problems and depression trying to come to terms with killing people. Give the job to fellow inmates. Fry your cell mate for 200 Marlboro light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
efdemin Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 I heard the phone-in on Radio 5 on the way in to work this morning. A few things occurred to me: - Is this the same e-petitions site that is roundly ignored when other petitions got over 100,000? - If so, why is this one making the news and might make it into parliament? - WTF is Guido Fawkes doing on the radio in support of this? And why did he get stunned into silence by one of Nicky Campbells questions, did he not prepare? - Isn't this just the Conservatives' pet project, a la fox hunting for Labour? Can I look forward to acres of tedious reporting on it and polarised debates? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BalancedBear Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 State backed execution has no place in a civilised society. There are always miscarriages of justice and two wrongs don't make a right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosh Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 State backed execution has no place in a civilised society. There are always miscarriages of justice and two wrongs don't make a right. The current punishments are not adequate. This issue would be hard to debate if they locked nasty bitches like this up for life. No supervised shopping trips, no tax funded salon treatments. No special treatment. She stabbed her victim 42 times and then put his family through hell. She has shown no remorse and offered no apology. http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16041919 Andrews, now 41, walked free from jail last week and has insisted it is her "human right" to get on with her life. 14 Years. Should not be called a life sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 A couple of things. Would that be the civilised society which allows people with terminal cancer to suffer instead of allowing them to end their own lives? Secondly, who are you to judge what is right and wrong when it comes to two wrongs don't make a right. In some societies restorative justice is the payment of cash, in others it's retributive justice, I'd hasn't to add that we should allow those who have been wronged the most when a heinous crime is committed to be allowed to have the most influence on the sentence which is finally handed down. +1 I'll also add that deterrents don't deter and revenge doesn't work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PopGun Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 I'll also add that deterrents don't deter The constant supply of inmates on Death Row supports this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Orange Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 And America still has one of the highest murder rates in the "civilized" world and executing people does not fix the underlining problems in that society that creates murderers. The ECHR can be a sanctimonious pain sometimes, but I'd rather stick with that than with a court system that enacts the death penalty, though more through concern about the miscarriage of justice than not wanting some right bastards getting theirs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionTerror Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 A couple of things. Would that be the civilised society which allows people with terminal cancer to suffer instead of allowing them to end their own lives? Secondly, who are you to judge what is right and wrong when it comes to two wrongs don't make a right. In some societies restorative justice is the payment of cash, in others it's retributive justice, I'd hasn't to add that we should allow those who have been wronged the most when a heinous crime is committed to be allowed to have the most influence on the sentence which is finally handed down. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/31/iran-acid-woman-pardons-attacker Her decision is bang on IMHO..an eye for an eye brings you down to their level Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petetong Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 And America still has one of the highest murder rates in the "civilized" world and executing people does not fix the underlining problems in that society that creates murderers. The ECHR can be a sanctimonious pain sometimes, but I'd rather stick with that than with a court system that enacts the death penalty, though more through concern about the miscarriage of justice than not wanting some right bastards getting theirs. Horlicks. The reason why the US has a higher murder rate than than a lot of countries is their gun laws and how easy it is to buy them. Simples. Also, South Africa doesn't have a death penalty but has the one of the highest murder and rape rates in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 Horlicks. The reason why the US has a higher murder rate than than a lot of countries is their gun laws and how easy it is to buy them. Simples. Also, South Africa doesn't have a death penalty but has the one of the highest murder and rape rates in the world. Nope. Canada has the same laws (more or less) and a lower murder rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inspector Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 Although isn't this a bit pointless as we've signed the European convention outlawing capital punishment? One step beyond : Protocol 13 http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/187.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oracle Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 well considering that the further integration into europe has been done without peoples consent via referendum(which our own constituion EXPLICITLY stipulates,the present bunch of politicians have been committing treason. so I guess there is one way to find out whether people would find it acceptable. The politicians have no backbone anymore,there is something nasty lurking in europe that we need to avoid....and the likes of ted heath and so on have taken the view of peace at any cost. NO...NOT AT ANY COST....appeasement doesn't work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PopGun Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 Nope. Canada has the same laws (more or less) and a lower murder rate. Doesn't Canada have 10 guns to every person or something silly like that?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 I think you might be being blinded by another possible reason here, women in Iran are seen as second class citizens both physically and societally , I suspect if she'd gone ahead with it, her life would have been even more of a living hell than it is now. Some times you've got to look behind the head lines and scratch the surface and look at other reasons as to why she came to such a decision, especially as she was adamant she wanted justice. Why do a 180 degree u turn? I've given you a very valid possible reason. Taken from the article: "For seven years I've been trying to pursue retribution and to prove that the punishment for an acid attack is retribution but today I decided to pardon him. This was my right but in future the next victim might not do the same." I have no problem with her not blinding him that is completely her choice, but as she states the next victim might not do the same, i.e. she considers that the victim's wishes in the say of what actually happens to the perpetrator of such crimes paramount, as I do. Just as long as we are using some decent empirical methodology to determine if the outcome is being achieved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 The outcome she wants i.e. money for allowing him still to see has yet to be obtained hasn't it? I wonder if she'll get the cash she wants, let's hope so. That's not an outcome that can be measured and should therefore be rejected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 For us lesser mortals, it's absolutely fine. Nope, you are failing at your stated objective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 Yeah what ever, perhaps you should ask the girl. ..and then measure the results in reality. Which is what I said at the start. What she would like to happen is important, her opinion on the result of actions taken immaterial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Downside Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 I think part the reason people want the death penalty is not for revenge but for peace of mind. If someone is found guilt of commiting several murders or being a pedophile and is sentanced to death. Once they are dead they will never commit those crimes again. Yes someone else might commit those crimes instead but they would have done aso whether the dead convict was alive or not. Its a touchy subject this, part of me says they should bring it back but the more reasonable side says they shouldn't and instead they should increase the life sentance to mean exactly what it says on the tin. There should be no parole, no early release no nothing, they should rot in jail until the end of their time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 I think that's the crux of the problem. Life should mean life, but because of a whole host of reasons, you only now get full life terms for something out of the norm in criminality terms and what with pressure on prison places and Ken Clark's ideas you even now, less likely to receive a full life sentence. But of course neither revenge, nor locking people away for life actually work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Downside Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 But of course neither revenge, nor locking people away for life actually work. It might not prevent future crimes but it at least prevents those that are found guilty from reoffending Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 It might not prevent future crimes but it at least prevents those that are found guilty from reoffending By making someone else the same as them. Doesn't work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 Your reply doesn't even make sense to Downside's statement. Yes, it does. In order to lock someone up "for life" you have to threaten many with death and create a team of professional kidnappers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 No it doesn't he's not making anyone as them, all he's doing is preventing them from committing crimes. He isn't - more crime is caused with his solution than if you simply did nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 You take someone and lock them up but more crime is caused with him out of circulation. By stealing money from still other people (sorry, tax!) and arming a crack team of professional kidnappers, who then work for whoever pays them most and they commit still further crime going forward. This, rather obviously, is an increase in crime. Meds not working today I see. Don't bother replying, I've you on ignore, I had thought some of the interventions were working, evidently not, bloody NHS. I reply anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.