To me, venegeance is as abhorrent as the crime itself. I can understand the feelings if someone close is the victim, but that doesn't mean that revenge is a legitimate answer.
Few murderers would spare a moment while in the act of commtting the crime to think of the consequences of getting caught, whether this be life imprisonment or a death sentence. They are so preoccupied with their crime that won't think about what could happen next. To expect the threat of a death sentence to change that is an illusion.
Few murderers would spare a moment while in the act of commtting the crime to think of the consequences of getting caught, whether this be life imprisonment or a death sentence. They are so preoccupied with their crime that won't think about what could happen next. To expect the threat of a death sentence to change that is an illusion.
Parksy
Moderator
I think that society has a right to expect some measure of retribution to be meted out to those who have acted in such a way that is abhorrent to that society.
I'm not convinced that capital punishment would deter murderers and there is strong evidence that those from poor backgrounds who may be ill educated are more likely to face execution in the United States than those who come from wealthy backgrounds who can pay for first class legal advice.
Would anyone in the UK seriously want the fate of a human being decided by 'Jackboots Jackie' or another politician of her ilk?
I would suggest that a review of sentencing should take place so that society was better protected from those who stepped outside it's boundaries.
I'm not convinced that capital punishment would deter murderers and there is strong evidence that those from poor backgrounds who may be ill educated are more likely to face execution in the United States than those who come from wealthy backgrounds who can pay for first class legal advice.
Would anyone in the UK seriously want the fate of a human being decided by 'Jackboots Jackie' or another politician of her ilk?
I would suggest that a review of sentencing should take place so that society was better protected from those who stepped outside it's boundaries.
100% with you Parksy but a few years in prison playing snooker, watching tv, 4 meals a day does to me not seem right. These old men with dusty wigs and red gowns do not have to live with these people. Most of them are not on this planet most of the time and lead a very shelted life. If you have to live on these estate were Mr Yob rules you would change your mind dame quick.
Parksy
Moderator
I live in the industrial West Midlands Stephen and I'm well aware of what goes on in tough estates and city centres.
Mr Yob only rules because we as a society allow yobbish behaviour to take place and penalties for acting outside mainstream societal values have been eroded.
Judges can only sentence offenders according to what is allowed by law so perhaps we need tougher sentences and offenders need to be taught that their actions will have direct consequences for them.
Family values and discipline in the home and at school would imo be a good starting point.
We need to place more emphasis and value on society and the need to conform within that society.
Those who then choose to act outside the values of society should face severe penalties but even if all that recidivists do is to play snooker and watch tv I would give them plenty of time to pursue those interests.
Mr Yob only rules because we as a society allow yobbish behaviour to take place and penalties for acting outside mainstream societal values have been eroded.
Judges can only sentence offenders according to what is allowed by law so perhaps we need tougher sentences and offenders need to be taught that their actions will have direct consequences for them.
Family values and discipline in the home and at school would imo be a good starting point.
We need to place more emphasis and value on society and the need to conform within that society.
Those who then choose to act outside the values of society should face severe penalties but even if all that recidivists do is to play snooker and watch tv I would give them plenty of time to pursue those interests.
Unfortunately, I feel that those who feel that any form of capital punishment is uncivilised are correct, but totally na
All I know is that if I felt so passionate about ending someone else's life, I wouldn't spare a thought about my own.
Nobody is being passionate, that is the very point. It is being dispassionate that is being advocated. Emotion and the Law must always remain separated otherwise you have no Law.
Our problem arises because we have produced a generation of people who believe that there is no such thing as evil because it means they failed. They have their own guilt consciences to hide behind whether it be as a result of the War, or a misguided belief that if they are not a threat to anyone, then they are perfectly safe. This generation, of which I am one, has passed on its guilts to the next generation, who in the absense of any form of control, are doing what any species does when out of control. That generation will in turn pass on to the next and then pretty soon, we have no civilisation at all.
I believe that in order to protect the majority of people who do believe in civilisation, then we must protect them from those that do not. Of course life is always a pendulum and we must try to stop it swinging too far in one direction or we have scenarios where extremism can take over. The history of the last Century cleary shows that and it is natural for people to try to avoid repetition. But as in the last Century sooner or later you have to make a stand, or be destroyed.
Our problem arises because we have produced a generation of people who believe that there is no such thing as evil because it means they failed. They have their own guilt consciences to hide behind whether it be as a result of the War, or a misguided belief that if they are not a threat to anyone, then they are perfectly safe. This generation, of which I am one, has passed on its guilts to the next generation, who in the absense of any form of control, are doing what any species does when out of control. That generation will in turn pass on to the next and then pretty soon, we have no civilisation at all.
I believe that in order to protect the majority of people who do believe in civilisation, then we must protect them from those that do not. Of course life is always a pendulum and we must try to stop it swinging too far in one direction or we have scenarios where extremism can take over. The history of the last Century cleary shows that and it is natural for people to try to avoid repetition. But as in the last Century sooner or later you have to make a stand, or be destroyed.
Have you the conviction to hang your son, daughter, grand childrean if they strayed from the path scotch lad? yes or no?
Le Croc
Somewhere in the annals of history I think you will find the hangman was exempt from hanging members of his own family.
A chap I knew through business suffered a complete mental breakdown five years ago when his 25 year old son was stabbed to death on the streets of Birmingham. All for his mobile phone.
The police found the villains and they are now doing life sentences.But it doesn't help the dead son nor broken down father and family.
I'm with Scotch Lad on this .
Cheers
Dustydog
Somewhere in the annals of history I think you will find the hangman was exempt from hanging members of his own family.
A chap I knew through business suffered a complete mental breakdown five years ago when his 25 year old son was stabbed to death on the streets of Birmingham. All for his mobile phone.
The police found the villains and they are now doing life sentences.But it doesn't help the dead son nor broken down father and family.
I'm with Scotch Lad on this .
Cheers
Dustydog
Yes I know scotch lad's not a hangman Dusty, but its still a poignant question I'd like him to answer, perhaps every one who's in favour would like to answer my question?
l think if l lost my Daughter to a thug l would want to see him/her suffer not a quick end, plenty of islands out in the pacific to leave them on, that way they may end up killing eash other saving us the trouble.
NigelH
NigelH
Parksy
Moderator
When capital punishment was abolished in Britain during the 1960s the lawmakers at the time 'sold' the new legislation by stipulating that instead of being condemned to death a felon who was guilty of a capital offence would be imprisoned for life. The abolition of the death penalty has never been popular with the majority of the public and they have been betrayed by the liberal elite.
Over the years since 'life' terms have become shorter and those serving life sentences have been released earlier on licence.
This is why debates of this nature continue, if murderers never saw the light of day again as far as society is concerned they would be dead.
Where miscarriages of justice have taken place there would still be a live body to release and no doubt compensate but killers should never be in any position to re offend.
Over the years since 'life' terms have become shorter and those serving life sentences have been released earlier on licence.
This is why debates of this nature continue, if murderers never saw the light of day again as far as society is concerned they would be dead.
Where miscarriages of justice have taken place there would still be a live body to release and no doubt compensate but killers should never be in any position to re offend.
Would I kill someone who had murdered my child? That is a question to which I cannot give an answer. If I met them immediately after they had committed the deed then it is highly probable that anger and grief would make me pick up the nearest thing to hand and batter him/her to a pulp. That would have been revenge, and would have been very sweet for the time it lasted. But if time elapsed then I would have neither the opportunity nor probably the inclination. However, that does not mean to say that I would not wish to see justice served, and if the law demanded the forfeiture of a life, then I doubt I would shed any tears. Many societies are trying to find ways of executing people as painlessly as possible, for example by injection in the USA. That only serves to make the people passing the Laws feel better, but they should have no need. If the Law is agreed, then all society accepts responsibility, and if the death is a little painful, then maybe that is not such a bad thing either. The crime has been committed and the punishment is understood.
My point is that lawlessness is rising in our society and we have to decide what will be required to protect us all. It is obvious the current system has failed totally in both the length of sentence and even the actual sentence awarded for what appear to be serious offences. I read today that thugs who commit violent offences will be fined
My point is that lawlessness is rising in our society and we have to decide what will be required to protect us all. It is obvious the current system has failed totally in both the length of sentence and even the actual sentence awarded for what appear to be serious offences. I read today that thugs who commit violent offences will be fined
So we are all agread then, its ok to string someone up for murder as long as they are not part of your family, I rest my case me'lord.
Hi there
I think Parksy the (Moderator) got it in one for me and why i get out of my tree on this subject.
1.Over the years since 'life' terms have become shorter and those serving life sentences are released just after a few years. Life should mean just that LIFE.
2.Killers should never be in any position to re offend again.
I think Parksy the (Moderator) got it in one for me and why i get out of my tree on this subject.
1.Over the years since 'life' terms have become shorter and those serving life sentences are released just after a few years. Life should mean just that LIFE.
2.Killers should never be in any position to re offend again.
Facebook
Twitter