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.

mattyrm wrote:

FITZZ wrote: The majority of prison cells look more like this rather than the "hotel room' shown in Matty's post...

...

...Not a hell hole...but hardly the Ritz..

Now, I do agree with Matty to an extent in that repeat offenders should be sentenced to spend their time in harsher conditions, based on the nature of the crimes...
I'm also of the train of thought that white collar criminals who bilk the public of millions should be among the first sent to "labor Camps", why lock up some guy who steals a few hundred dollars in some gak hole but send the rich to soft " detention centers"?

As for as capital punishment...I'm very much in favor of it in certian cases, particularly those involving violent/predatory acts committed against children, I don't care that it won't " bring the victim back"...at least perhaps it will give the parents/moved ones some degree of peace.

fething hell, en suite as well!?

This is an OUTRAGE!

Almost floor to ceiling window as well!

Goliath wrote:

mattyrm wrote:

FITZZ wrote: The majority of prison cells look more like this rather than the "hotel room' shown in Matty's post...

...

...Not a hell hole...but hardly the Ritz..

Now, I do agree with Matty to an extent in that repeat offenders should be sentenced to spend their time in harsher conditions, based on the nature of the crimes...
I'm also of the train of thought that white collar criminals who bilk the public of millions should be among the first sent to "labor Camps", why lock up some guy who steals a few hundred dollars in some gak hole but send the rich to soft " detention centers"?

As for as capital punishment...I'm very much in favor of it in certian cases, particularly those involving violent/predatory acts committed against children, I don't care that it won't " bring the victim back"...at least perhaps it will give the parents/moved ones some degree of peace.

fething hell, en suite as well!?

This is an OUTRAGE!

Almost floor to ceiling window as well!

Yeah...those pillows look mighty comfy as well...

I think the death penalty is hypocritical. It also justifys killing people. If scumbagA kills productivecitizenB then we kill A, we are saying that he deserves what B got. (death) Essentially B is being reduced to A. A should just not exist. All rights should be forfeit and assets siezed and given to B's family. Yes that means A's family is buggered. It's not fair but would be more of a deterrant.

FITZZ wrote:Yeah...those pillows look mighty comfy as well...

Designed following the principals of Feng Shui as well... note how the ladder does not directly face the door so the occupants' wealth does not drain away


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phototoxin wrote:I think the death penalty is hypocritical. It also justifys killing people. If scumbagA kills productivecitizenB then we kill A, we are saying that he deserves what B got. (death) Essentially B is being reduced to A. A should just not exist. All rights should be forfeit and assets siezed and given to B's family. Yes that means A's family is buggered. It's not fair but would be more of a deterrant.

A person denying the rights of another should in tern have their rights limited or removed by society in punishment and deterrent. Just as is the case now whereby if a person robs/assaults/etc's someone, they have their rights to freedom removed for a period of time. The death penalty is an extension of this removal of rights.

Phototoxin wrote:I think the death penalty is hypocritical. It also justifys killing people. If scumbagA kills productivecitizenB then we kill A, we are saying that he deserves what B got. (death) Essentially B is being reduced to A. A should just not exist. All rights should be forfeit and assets siezed and given to B's family. Yes that means A's family is buggered. It's not fair but would be more of a deterrant.

...Hmm, ok...let's take Ted Bundy for example, he raped and murdered over 30 women....how exactly were his " assets" supposed to be dived up amongst the families of his victims?
...Let's be honest here....some people simply deserve to be killed.

Dude, the seizing of Assests...that's just Weregild.

FITZZ wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:I think the death penalty is hypocritical. It also justifys killing people. If scumbagA kills productivecitizenB then we kill A, we are saying that he deserves what B got. (death) Essentially B is being reduced to A. A should just not exist. All rights should be forfeit and assets siezed and given to B's family. Yes that means A's family is buggered. It's not fair but would be more of a deterrant.

...Hmm, ok...let's take Ted Bundy for example, he raped and murdered over 30 women....how exactly were his " assets" supposed to be dived up amongst the families of his victims?
...Let's be honest here....some people simply deserve to be killed.

What about majorly successful wackos, Harold Shipman killed 200+, if he didnt have that much in bank, what you looking at?

A sock each?

Seriously though, dont you think that "typical" cell was too comfy!?

A toilet and shower in your fething room!? I wish that "cell" was my room at 40 commando, I had to share two showers with 8 people!

mattyrm wrote:A toilet and shower in your fething room!? I wish that "cell" was my room at 40 commando, I had to share two showers with 8 people!

But just imagine what that cell is like after "curry night"

mattyrm wrote:

FITZZ wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:I think the death penalty is hypocritical. It also justifys killing people. If scumbagA kills productivecitizenB then we kill A, we are saying that he deserves what B got. (death) Essentially B is being reduced to A. A should just not exist. All rights should be forfeit and assets siezed and given to B's family. Yes that means A's family is buggered. It's not fair but would be more of a deterrant.

...Hmm, ok...let's take Ted Bundy for example, he raped and murdered over 30 women....how exactly were his " assets" supposed to be dived up amongst the families of his victims?
...Let's be honest here....some people simply deserve to be killed.

What about majorly successful wackos, Harold Shipman killed 200+, if he didnt have that much in bank, what you looking at?

A sock each?

Seriously though, dont you think that "typical" cell was too comfy!?

A toilet and shower in your fething room!? I wish that "cell" was my room at 40 commando, I had to share two showers with 8 people!

I think it's situational, you had one to many pints and broke some loud mouths jaw...then no, it's not too comfy...
You beat an old lady over the head to steal her purse...then hell yes it's way too comfy...

EDIT:..Though I do see your point that conditions for honorable people serving their country should be better than the conditions for any variety of criminal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@ Silver...

Now that is cruel and unusual punishment..

See - it's just as asinine as killing them!

Lock them up somwhere non-cushy. Alternatively drop them onto some sort of island..

Phototoxin wrote:Lock them up somwhere non-cushy. Alternatively drop them onto some sort of island..

Excellent plan... though with all the air travel tax these days we will have to use somewhere closer than Australia... perhaps Ireland?

SilverMK2 wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:Lock them up somwhere non-cushy. Alternatively drop them onto some sort of island..

Excellent plan... though with all the air travel tax these days we will have to use somewhere closer than Australia... perhaps Ireland?

...

Smacks wrote:(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")

If great minds think alike, does that mean not so great minds think alike too?

Phototoxin wrote:See - it's just as asinine as killing them!

Lock them up somwhere non-cushy. Alternatively drop them onto some sort of island..

So...Degenerate murders in the role of Gilligan?
How's this for another alternative...after a fair trial and one appeal if your found guilty of a particularly heinous crime ( the mass murder of children for example) your taken out,placed against a wall and shot in the head...no muss, no fuss and no expense whatsoever for maintaining your useless existance.

FITZZ wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:See - it's just as asinine as killing them!

Lock them up somwhere non-cushy. Alternatively drop them onto some sort of island..

So...Degenerate murders in the role of Gilligan?
How's this for another alternative...after a fair trial and one appeal if your found guilty of a particularly heinous crime ( the mass murder of children for example) your taken out,placed against a wall and shot in the head...no muss, no fuss and no expense whatsoever for maintaining your useless existance.

Or... kill everyone and solve crime completely.



On a more serious note though. I would like to draw attention to the case of Timothy Evans...

Timothy John Evans was a Welshman accused of murdering his wife and daughter at their residence in Notting Hill, London in November 1949. In January 1950 Evans was tried and convicted of the murder of his daughter, and he was sentenced to death by hanging. He was 25 years old.

During his trial, Evans had accused his neighbour, John Christie, of being responsible for the murders. Three years after Evans's trial, Christie was found to be a serial killer who had murdered a number of women at his property, including his wife, and this cast serious doubt on the safety of Evans's conviction. An official inquiry conducted 16 years after Evans's hanging confirmed that Evans's daughter had been murdered by Christie, and Evans was subsequently granted a posthumous pardon. Christie admitted that he had also murdered Beryl Evans.

Timothy Evans had to endure one of the worst things that can happen to a man, seeing his wife and child murdered. The fact that he was also murdered for a crime he didn't commit, before the real killer was apprehended. Just highlights the stupidity of capital punishment.

People let their hatred for monsters like Breivik cloud their judgement. Killing Breivik wouldn't bring back a single one of his victims, all it does is open the door for more innocent people to die, like Timothy Evens and a whole host of others who have been wrongly executed.

Smacks wrote:Timothy Evans had to endure one of the worst things that can happen to a man, seeing his wife and child murdered. The fact that he was also murdered for a crime he didn't commit, before the real killer was apprehended. Just highlights the stupidity of capital punishment.

People let their hatred for monsters like Breivik cloud their judgement. Killing Breivik wouldn't bring back a single one of his victims, all it does is open the door for more innocent people to die, like Timothy Evens and a whole host of others who have been wrongly executed.

I'm willing to bet that forensic science has moved on enough that such errors are rare enough that if someone is convicted, they are more than likely guilty. We've been able to put away a large number of cold file criminals because we can now match DNA with a drop of blood rather than needing a bath full, etc, for example.

Certainly not infallible but significantly better than things were in the past.

And you can risk making the executee into a martyr. Far better to just lock them up and let society quietly forget about the nutter.

SilverMK2 wrote:

Smacks wrote:Timothy Evans had to endure one of the worst things that can happen to a man, seeing his wife and child murdered. The fact that he was also murdered for a crime he didn't commit, before the real killer was apprehended. Just highlights the stupidity of capital punishment.

People let their hatred for monsters like Breivik cloud their judgement. Killing Breivik wouldn't bring back a single one of his victims, all it does is open the door for more innocent people to die, like Timothy Evens and a whole host of others who have been wrongly executed.

I'm willing to bet that forensic science has moved on enough that such errors are rare enough that if someone is convicted, they are more than likely guilty. We've been able to put away a large number of cold file criminals because we can now match DNA with a drop of blood rather than needing a bath full, etc, for example.

Certainly not infallible but significantly better than things were in the past.

Please refer to the figures on miscarriages of justice I presented earlier in the thread.

SilverMK2 wrote:

I'm willing to bet that forensic science has moved on enough that such errors are rare enough that if someone is convicted, they are more than likely guilty. We've been able to put away a large number of cold file criminals because we can now match DNA with a drop of blood rather than needing a bath full, etc, for example.

Certainly not infallible but significantly better than things were in the past.

Thats my point, we stopped because we fethed up more often.

Nowadays, we could lock people up for life if we were only 99.99% certain of guilt.

But if your on CCTV, or your baby gravy is all over a body and its matched with DNA, we can safely lop your knut off.

SilverMK2 wrote:

Smacks wrote:Timothy Evans had to endure one of the worst things that can happen to a man, seeing his wife and child murdered. The fact that he was also murdered for a crime he didn't commit, before the real killer was apprehended. Just highlights the stupidity of capital punishment.

People let their hatred for monsters like Breivik cloud their judgement. Killing Breivik wouldn't bring back a single one of his victims, all it does is open the door for more innocent people to die, like Timothy Evens and a whole host of others who have been wrongly executed.

I'm willing to bet that forensic science has moved on enough that such errors are rare enough that if someone is convicted, they are more than likely guilty. We've been able to put away a large number of cold file criminals because we can now match DNA with a drop of blood rather than needing a bath full, etc, for example.

Certainly not infallible but significantly better than things were in the past.

This...

If there is clear DNA evidence linking and individule to the crime then what purpose does continuing their existance serve ?

DNA and that sadly isn't as conclusive as many think. Sure, it can be incredibly damning, and you better have a good alibi, but samples can be contaminated, your DNA can up in relatively random places etc. Helll, I could arrange for some your population paste to turn up exactly where I want it to, should I have a mind to do so.

Until such things are 100% effective, I cannot favour a death penalty.

Kilkrazy wrote:Please refer to the figures on miscarriages of justice I presented earlier in the thread.

Kilkrazy wrote: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.

This one?

So, in a period of 6 years, 12 people had their convictions overturned. Do you have any information on when these people were sentenced? I know of a few people who were put away in the 80's and so on who have been let out because new techniques have been applied to the evidence in their cases and removed reasonable doubt.

However, I refer you to my last line:

SilverMK2 wrote:Certainly not infallible but significantly better than things were in the past.

I would be interested to know how many convictions have been overturned in cases done in the last 10 years or so. Obviously time is a factor as the appeal process can often go on for a long time, so there may be pending or on-going appeal cases from this period.

Mr Mystery wrote:DNA and that sadly isn't as conclusive as many think. Sure, it can be incredibly damning, and you better have a good alibi, but samples can be contaminated, your DNA can up in relatively random places etc. Helll, I could arrange for some your population paste to turn up exactly where I want it to, should I have a mind to do so.

Until such things are 100% effective, I cannot favour a death penalty.

Indeed, if I was going to kill someone, the smart thing to do would be to contaminate the scene with someone else's DNA while trying not to leave any of your own. I'm sure people get set up all the time.

Mr Mystery wrote:DNA and that sadly isn't as conclusive as many think. Sure, it can be incredibly damning, and you better have a good alibi, but samples can be contaminated, your DNA can up in relatively random places etc. Helll, I could arrange for some your population paste to turn up exactly where I want it to, should I have a mind to do so.

My wife did forensic science and biochemistry at university, and I have picked up enough from her to know DNA is not the be all and end all. I was using it as an example of a set of scientific advances that have been made which can shed new light on old cases, and help with new cases where there would have been insufficient material to be used in the past.

Mr Mystery wrote:DNA and that sadly isn't as conclusive as many think. Sure, it can be incredibly damning, and you better have a good alibi, but samples can be contaminated, your DNA can up in relatively random places etc. Helll, I could arrange for some your population paste to turn up exactly where I want it to, should I have a mind to do so.

Until such things are 100% effective, I cannot favour a death penalty.

Yes, I suppose an individule with reason could " set another person up" , but how often is this likely to occur?...
I'd think in more cases than not if a body is discovered with DNA evidence linking it to person A...and DNA evidence from the body is later discovered at person A's dwelling..
then there is a damn good chance that person A is your man.

Yep, what Smacks said (and what no doubt others have said too - can't be bothered to read entire thread).

You can never be 100% sure and leaving aside the whole ethics debate, that is reason enough for me.

Flashman wrote:You can never be 100% sure

Not even when someone is caught red handed in the middle of the act by a film crew following around a group of police officers and forensic scientists?

SilverMK2 wrote:

Flashman wrote:You can never be 100% sure

Not even when someone is caught red handed in the middle of the act by a film crew following around a group of police officers and forensic scientists?

Haven't you ever watched Prison Break?

SilverMK2 wrote:

Flashman wrote:You can never be 100% sure

Not even when someone is caught red handed in the middle of the act by a film crew following around a group of police officers and forensic scientists?

Maybe then

Seriously, it's all very well to come up with hypothetical cut and dry situations, but in reality where do you draw the line between 100% Guilty and 99.9% Guilty.

So is a .1% chance of innocence supposed to outwiegh a 99.9% chance of guilt?...
Again, Hypothetically ...

Several bodies are discovered on or around person A's property.
Person A has prior offenses of a deviant nature.
There is direct evidence linking person A to the discovered bodies.

..Do we then assume that because we lack video footage of Person A actually commiting the murders that that .1% is enough to prove his innocence?

It's not about proving innocence, it's about whether we have the right to kill him when their is even the glimmer of a doubt that he didn't do it.

And define deviant behaviour? I know I'm putting words in your mouth, but I'm not so much aiming this at you as at 'slippery slope' type logic. Is deviant behaviour enjoy a bit of S&M in the bedroom? Or is it being Bi Curious? At what point does an individuals foible become grounds for additional suspicion?