Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

htj wrote:

I agree with the sentiment, but not the solution. Death is an easy out. I believe that they should suffer a miserable, demeaning, back-breaking life, every day being subjected to unpleasant, humiliating work, long hours, be fed only the most basic foods, be denied sight of the sky or anything beyond their bleak, concrete prison. Give them no comforts, no respite, no hope of an end. Every day remind them of what they did, and why they now live like this. And make sure that they live a long, long life like this. That is punishment. Death will seem preferable in the end.

See, this is why there is an issue, modern first world prisons will never be like that. They arent miserable, demeaning, back-breaking, unpleasant or humiliating.

They never will be. They get three square meals, a heated cell, a proper matress, hot showers and quick fething medical treatment. This nice chap Levi is currently suing for 30k because he suffered a minor assault.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8678562/Milly-Dowlers-killer-Levi-Bellfield-sues-prison-service-for-30000-over-jail-attack.html

So, if we lived in bizarro world, then yes, me and Alby wouldnt mind seeing people in prison suffering, but they dont. I didnt suffer in Afghanistan and I had a cold shower to share with 100 men, rations to eat, a rollmat to sleep on and only water to drink. Im not saying that prison is the cakewalk that uber right wing idiots make it out to be, but in prison are the coniditons as bad as Afghanistan? I guarantee they get at the very minimum hot showers, hot meals, the occasional drink of something that isnt just tap water and a proper matress to sleep on.

Suffering. Do me a favour.

Ill say it again, ultra lefty types with a "peace man" attitude towards crime do so because they are unaffected by this vileness. Tell me this, do you think the judge that let a guy off with a a suspended sentence because he feared "assault in prison" would have done so if it was his own kids getting raped?

What is the point in Ian Huntley still breathing? Or Levi? They can never be released, and they arent suffering, so what the point is there in any of it?

Prison and rehab makes sense for most crimes, cause and effect, adiction, theft, whatever.

But fething and killing children? What can we do? Make them watch videos for a few years and then let them out give them a job at Phones4U?!

It would probably be an improvement to the customer service on offer at Phones4U, to be fair.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that prisons are like that. They really are not, and I hate how bloody cushty prisons are these days. This is how I would want them to be. Hell-holes, simply put, places of suffering. Not hotels for the lawless.

I thought we'd moved on from that now. I don't even understand why they are talking about it. What will they think of next? Bring back slavery? Remove the rights of women to vote?

Aside from it being barbaric, The UK can't legislate to bring back the death penalty while it is subject to the Counsel of Europe. The UK would have to withdraw from the Counsel, which they won't do, so even talking about it is a waste of breath (and more importantly Tax payers money).

Smacks wrote:I thought we'd moved on from that now. I don't even understand why they are talking about it. What will they think of next? Bring back slavery? Remove the rights of women to vote?

Last time I saw stats on it (which probably was in the 90s, so may be different now), polling about the death penalty showed that there's about as much support for it in the general population of the UK as in the US, it certainly wasn't a 'dead and buried' issue.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:

Smacks wrote:I thought we'd moved on from that now. I don't even understand why they are talking about it. What will they think of next? Bring back slavery? Remove the rights of women to vote?

Last time I saw stats on it (which probably was in the 90s, so may be different now), polling about the death penalty showed that there's about as much support for it in the general population of the UK as in the US, it certainly wasn't a 'dead and buried' issue.

I'm afraid it is. We gave it a trial and found it guilty, so we killed it. Evidence suggests now that it might of been a mistrial, and that it was innocent. We'd love to give it a reprieve, but hey, there you go.

mattyrm wrote:...and only water to drink.

I thought the Royal Marines rolled in higher style.

Though I suppose you probably made toilet sangria.

mattyrm wrote:
Ill say it again, ultra lefty types with a "peace man" attitude towards crime do so because they are unaffected by this vileness.

That's probably true, though not in the sense that you mean. I know many people who have been affected, materially, by vileness but simply didn't care. Hell, I have been materially affected by vileness, but did not care. My experience has conditioned me to consider a desire for vengeance as a liability, so when I do experience it, I quickly suppress it and move on; which explains my liquor cabinet.

Also, some politically minded folk like to annoy their opposition, and adopt positions with that express interest in mind. Trolling is not just a thing on the internet.

mattyrm wrote:
Tell me this, do you think the judge that let a guy off with a a suspended sentence because he feared "assault in prison" would have done so if it was his own kids getting raped?

No, but then he would not, or at least should not, have been in that position due to a conflict of interests.

I'm all for it. After all, executions do bring the victims back to life.

Chongara wrote:I'm all for it. After all, executions do bring the victims back to life.

and it has a deterent effect.
Just look at the zero murder rate in the states that already have capital punishment
It's a win win double whammy!

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:

Chongara wrote:I'm all for it. After all, executions do bring the victims back to life.

and it has a deterent effect.
Just look at the zero murder rate in the states that already have capital punishment
It's a win win double whammy!

I know right. Texas is five times safer than anywhere else in the developed world. It's awesome!

dogma wrote:Also, some politically minded folk like to annoy their opposition, and adopt positions with that express interest in mind. Trolling is not just a thing on the internet.

http://www.crainium.net/jdjArchives/2011/01/before_there_was_facebook.html

Kilkrazy wrote:

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Capital punishment doesn't work.

Depends on what you mean by "work". It isn't a good rehabilitation device, but it works wonders for recidivism.

It doesn't work as a deterrent, which is the key point.

Recidivism is very low among released murderers in the UK.

By the same flawed logic Detroit's high crime and recidivism rate can be blamed 100% on the fact that Michigan has never had capitol punishment as an option, and has never executed a prisoner. It doesn't take much to show that logic is severely flawed.

Recidivism is far too complicated of a subject to simply look at the rate at which convicted murderers repeat the crime that landed them in jail. The general quality of a prison system is what controls the recidivism rate, not capitol punishment or the lack of capitol punishment. California for example has one of the slowest rate of execution of those on death row, we executed 13 prisoners since 1976, currently have 697 people on death row, are unlikely to execute 13 more prisoners by the year 2046, but are highly likely to give the death penalty to 700+ more prisoners by the year 2046. It doesn't take much to point out the fact that California's death penalty is a total joke. We also have one of the worst recidivism rates in the USA, but the last thing I would blame that on is an ineffective death penalty. Our recidivism rate is high because we don't do enough to reintegrate convicts into society, our prisons are over crowded, and #1 reason our recidivism rate is so high is organized crime controls our prison system. The prison gangs determines who lives, who dies, and who gets raped within the California prison system, and thus have far more power than the guards. At this point we can stop the debate about California's recidivism rate and the death penalty, because no matter what we do with the death penalty the results will be completely dwarfed by the fact our inmates run out penal system due to issues with over crowding and mismanagement of funds.

Recidivism is far too complicated of a subject to simply look at the rate at which convicted murderers repeat the crime that landed them in jail.

Perhaps not the best way to start, but I get what you're saying.

However, Kilkrazy's point is that the threat of the death penalty is not enough of a deterrent alone, otherwise the states in which the death penalty was practiced would have significantly lower murder rates, which they don't. The recidivism thing was a response to biccat's glib comment which, if I'm honest, amused me greatly.

schadenfreude wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Capital punishment doesn't work.

Depends on what you mean by "work". It isn't a good rehabilitation device, but it works wonders for recidivism.

It doesn't work as a deterrent, which is the key point.

Recidivism is very low among released murderers in the UK.

By the same flawed logic Detroit's high crime and recidivism rate can be blamed 100% on the fact that Michigan has never had capitol punishment as an option, and has never executed a prisoner. It doesn't take much to show that logic is severely flawed.

My point isn't based on logic, it's based on empirical research findings.

I have been thinking this over some more and I still agree with the death penalty for certain crimes; '1st degree murder', drug dealers, serial paedophiles and rapists, treason/terrorist. I also think they should introduce the option of serving in the armed forces as part of penal legion for a period of time or have longer sentence. Obviously needs more thought but is the beginning of an idea.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:

Smacks wrote:I thought we'd moved on from that now. I don't even understand why they are talking about it. What will they think of next? Bring back slavery? Remove the rights of women to vote?

Last time I saw stats on it (which probably was in the 90s, so may be different now), polling about the death penalty showed that there's about as much support for it in the general population of the UK as in the US, it certainly wasn't a 'dead and buried' issue.

I don't doubt that there is support for it, but democracy shouldn't be about mob rule. If we always did what the ignorant masses wanted, then I'm sure sure we could be shooting criminals, burning homosexuals, printing money, and nuking Iran right now.

Democracy should not be a majority dictatorship. It aught to protect the rights of all citizens, especially minorities. The people who deliberated over the Deceleration of human rights decided that it was important that all people had the right to life... I.e. To not be put to death. I would much more willing to go with their carefully considered opinion when it comes to law, rather than the opinion of some random asshats in a pub who may or may not care about or even understand the implications of such a penalty.

(Pubs are usually where I hear the most heavy handed solutions to society's problems. Grumpy middle-aged aged men spouting such infinite wisdoms as: "I'd drop a bomb on the lot of em", "I'd shoot them all" and lets not forget "I'd put them all on an island")

I'd like to (re?)introduce the death penalty for the crimes of 'fiddling ones expenses while in public office' and 'being called Rupert or James Murdoch'.

Getting 100,000 names on a petition will be a cinch.

Smacks wrote:I don't doubt that there is support for it, but democracy shouldn't be about mob rule. If we always did what the ignorant masses wanted, then I'm sure sure we could be shooting criminals, burning homosexuals, printing money, and nuking Iran right now.

So if a lot of people disagree with you, they're guilty of wanting mob rule and the topic should not ever even be up for debate, but if a lot of people agree with you, it's a sign of the progress of man? Really a rather arrogant and condescending point of view, and absolutely useless for convincing anyone of anything except 'that guy is just a puffed-up tosser who can't make a real argument'. I think that allowing the nobility (in the modern variant of 'rich people, politicians, and celebrities') armed retainers for personal defense, but forbidding mere commoners from having the means to protect themselves is pretty damn medieval, but that's not a line of argument that's actually going to change anyone's position.

Kilkrazy wrote:

schadenfreude wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Capital punishment doesn't work.

Depends on what you mean by "work". It isn't a good rehabilitation device, but it works wonders for recidivism.

It doesn't work as a deterrent, which is the key point.

Recidivism is very low among released murderers in the UK.

By the same flawed logic Detroit's high crime and recidivism rate can be blamed 100% on the fact that Michigan has never had capitol punishment as an option, and has never executed a prisoner. It doesn't take much to show that logic is severely flawed.

My point isn't based on logic, it's based on empirical research findings.

I think you're just SOFT ON CRIME.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:So if a lot of people disagree with you, they're guilty of wanting mob rule and the topic should not ever even be up for debate, but if a lot of people agree with you, it's a sign of the progress of man? Really a rather arrogant and condescending point of view, and absolutely useless for convincing anyone of anything except 'that guy is just a puffed-up tosser who can't make a real argument'. I think that allowing the nobility (in the modern variant of 'rich people, politicians, and celebrities') armed retainers for personal defense, but forbidding mere commoners from having the means to protect themselves is pretty damn medieval, but that's not a line of argument that's actually going to change anyone's position.

No that's a massive misrepresentation of my position. People should have a say in how their country is run sure, but not to the point of being able to arbitrarily remove someone else's rights. If a majority can arbitrarily take away someone's right to life, then why not also their right to free speech or right to a fair trial? If you can vote to kill paedophiles, then why not other criminals, or people who you don't like?

It's easy to get carried away thinking about specific examples. Of course terrorists shouldn't be released from prison to blow people up, just because evidence it still being gethered. Of course we all want that guy who raped and murdered a bunch of children to get what he deserves (a painful death). But you can't ignore the precedents that these actions set.

We've reached a stage already where you can be dragged out of your home by police, and locked up indefinitely. No phone call, no lawyer, no trial. Because anti terrorism legislation allow it. It doesn't matter that you aren't a terrorist, or that you don't even know any terrorists. You're completely screwed.

Suddenly these laws that were sold to us as being "for our own safety" and "to protect us from terrorists" seem less appealing. When you realise how much of your freedom has been sacrificed, they are actually very unappealing and scary.

Now you want to add the death penalty into the mix? More fool you. If you start trying to take away other people's right to life, even if they are bad people. It sets a precedent that opens the door for someone else to take away your right to life, it doesn't matter that you don't think you deserve to die. Other people might not agree. That's why everyone having the right to life is the best and safest option, even if it means we don't get to murder 1 or 2 nasty criminals a year. I can personally live with them just being in jail forever.

As for for the issue being dead an buried: it pretty much is. Not because everyone agrees, but because the UK can't legally change the legislation, even if there where overwhelming support. So why even open up the issue to public debate?

Won't someone think about the children?

Smacks wrote:If a majority can arbitrarily take away someone's right to life, then why not also their right to free speech or right to a fair trial?

It's not really arbitrary, there are pretty important prequalifiers before the death penalty is used. For example, a guilty verdict for first degree murder in the states.

The rationale there is that certain crimes are so heinous that society is entitled to enact the maximum punishment. If you maliciously take someone's life, the state can take your own life as punishment.

Besides, we already take away a person's privacy, free speech, freedom of movement, right to own firearms, and a whole host of other rights when you're in prison. To argue that the death penalty starts this slippery slope is questionable.

I think the legal system should set out to protect innocent people from being accidentally punished as much as possible. The death penalty works against that idea. Once someone is dead there is no chance for an appeal, or for new evidence to be submitted. I think that alone is reason enough to consider the death penalty unacceptable under any circumstances (Even in cases where the person seems to be unquestionably guilty, you can never be too careful).

Smacks wrote:I think the legal system should set out to protect innocent people from being accidentally punished as much as possible. The death penalty works against that idea. Once someone is dead there is no chance for an appeal, or for new evidence to be submitted. I think that alone is reason enough to consider the death penalty unacceptable under any circumstances (Even in cases where the person seems to be unquestionably guilty, you can never be too careful).

You're just being SOFT ON CRIME.

I'll just mention here that posts like the above are considered spam and are against forum participation rules.

Smacks wrote:No that's a massive misrepresentation of my position.

It is not in any way a misrepresentation of your position. You don't like the death penalty, so you assert that people who are in favor of it are guilty of wanting mob rule, and believe that lawmakers should not debate it even though a large chunk of their constituents want them to. You haven't offered any logical reason for why the death penalty should be off the table, all you've offered is either 'well it's illegal now so it's barbaric and archaic like these other old things' or an argument that applies just as well to imprisonment or fines as it does to the death penalty.

People should have a say in how their country is run sure, but not to the point of being able to arbitrarily remove someone else's rights. If a majority can arbitrarily take away someone's right to life, then why not also their right to free speech or right to a fair trial? If you can vote to kill paedophiles, then why not other criminals, or people who you don't like?

Is putting someone in a prison cell a violation of their rights (and bear in mind that you typically don't have the right to free speech or association while in jail)? What about confiscating their money? If you're going to argue that removing people's rights as punishment for committing crimes is wrong, then you're objecting to pretty much the entire criminal justice system in any country that I'm aware of. If you accept removing rights from people who commit crimes, then this line of argument collapses.

Now you want to add the death penalty into the mix? More fool you.

I'm not actually arguing in favor of the death penalty here, just pointing out that your line of argument against it is flawed and unworkable. Killkrazy, for example, is making legitimate arguments, he's not making an argument that would require the country to give up every punishment for every crime if it were valid.

As for for the issue being dead an buried: it pretty much is. Not because everyone agrees, but because the UK can't legally change the legislation, even if there where overwhelming support. So why even open up the issue to public debate?

It's clearly not dead and buried, no matter how much you want it to be, if a large portion of the population says it's not. That's pretty much a tautology, if a lot of people are interested in an issue and want to change the way things are done, it's an open issue even if the changes they want would be hard to implement. Countries can repudiate treaties, it's not really all that uncommon even if it would be foolish to do in this case.

Won't someone think about (executing) the children?

That's spam too.

I'm just saying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The case against a debate on capital punishment

1. Under the Treaty of Lisbon it is illegal for the UK to have capital punishment. A debate on the topic must also be a debate on all the issues involved in withdrawal from the Treaty. We have bigger things to worry about.

2. In the UK between 1 January 2003 and 17 February 2009 there were 758 releases of mandatory life sentence prisoners, all of whom had been convicted of murder. Of those, 48 were later recalled and subsequently convicted of further serious offences. One was convicted of another murder.

3. During the same period at least 12 people convicted of murder had their convictions overturned as miscarriages of justice. That is 12 innocent people who would have been dead under capital punishment.

4. The USA has a murder rate three times that of the UK.

5. Countries with high rates of capital punishment include the Peoples’ Republic of China, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, North Korea, Libya and Syria.

I forgot I had made that statement in this thread already. Sorry about that.

The thing is, sentencing, in the UK at least, take in many factors, from plea bargaining to whether a psychiatrist believes the perp is going to be a continued threat.

I mean, let's look at what it means to be a Paedophile. This ranges right from the extreme wrong'uns with a sexual fascination/obsession with the extremely young, to some poor sod who pulls in the pub, knocks boots, and finds out the lady in question was 15, sometime after. BOTH are Paedophiles. So where is the cut off for the Death Penalty? What if (and this has happened!) a guy is drunk, and has a teenaged, or even preteen girl, take advantage? Does that rule out age of the victim in determining the extent of the sentence?

This is why I, personally, do not agree with Capital Punishment. Chemical Castration? That I'm all for. If you cannot curb your behaviour, then society should have the right, and the responsbility, to curb it for you.

Another point, look at the reckless press in the UK. They can, and have, prevented people from having a fair trial with their mindless little Witch Hunt, as you're innocent until wildly speculated guilty by the gutter press.

Now, if I could do away with one thing, it would be the 'secure units' to keep certain types away from typical prisonsers. I say feth 'em. You lived like a beast, now you're in with the animals. Hope you're not too fond of your testicles.....

(Yeah, I know, I come across all Lefty Liberal, but believe me, if I thought I could get away with it, people who seriously crossed me would find themsleves de-limbed, with the stumps sealed with pitch. Ideally they would then live a long life thereafter, and rue the day they pissed me off for as long as is possible. Oh, and I might cut out their ears, and tear out their tongue to boot. But not the eyes. I'd want them to see the abject horror of those who see them)