starsailor9774

The death penalty doesn't help prevent crimes and it cost more than keeping people in prison.

Not calling you a liar or anything but how does the death penaty cost more than say 20 years in prison?

CED has linked some figures on the previous page which are well worth a look.

However, think about it. A death row prisoner is held like another life prisoner, for a considerable length of time. During this time, they are granted a right to appeals which again take time (more cost on imprisoning them) and also cost a fortune. They have numerous rounds of these and it takes years to ensure as far as possible that 'justice' is done (i use the quotations here because I don't believe justice can end with a state sanctioned death in a legal sense). I'd imagine the actual execution is hardly cheap either.

You effectively take all the costs of a long term top level imprisonment, add in the exceptionally lengthy and high cost of a high level appeal system, and the ultimate cost of killing them. Isn't cheaper by any means.

I never agreed to appeals........ i was more in favour of this scenario

Judge - "i sentence you to death for the crimes you have committed. Now say goodbye to the folks you know, you're swinging in 5 minutes"

. However, it could deter the thief holding up the post office from killing the post master for example.

how would that help in the bulger case? :?

He asked me a question about the death penalty, not the bulger case.

bollocks he did.

he said, "IN THIS SITUATION".

He asked me what gave me moral superiority in the situation under debate.

yes he did. The situation under debate being hanging the 2 bulger boys. Couldn't be any clearer matey.

He said "takes someone's life" as in a general use of the death penalty, which i answered. I then gave an example of where it could/might be a deterrent to particular criminals. Can't see your problem....... matey.

For the record, i voted death.

I'm not going to jump on any bandwagons or label you anything, but i'm intrigued to know what gives you the moral superiority in this situation when you advocate such a thing?

If you knowingly put someone to death (or murder as it's commonly known), or even advocate it puts you in a position that you are just as bad as those who kill?

What gives you the right to take a life?

in my view if we had the death penalty as an option then the criminal knows what could await them...

I think if you believe capital punishment would have prevented the bulger killing, you're really barking up the wrong tree fella.

you think these kids thought through their actions?

Putting the body on railtracks in an attempt for it to be totally destroyed beyond recognition tells me they did.

i don't see why it tells you that, but there you go.

They clearly didn't know enough about forensics or body disposal.

Neither do most murderers who try to dispose of bodies so that point is worthless.

. However, it could deter the thief holding up the post office from killing the post master for example.

how would that help in the bulger case? :?

He asked me a question about the death penalty, not the bulger case.

bollocks he did.

he said, "IN THIS SITUATION".

He asked me what gave me moral superiority in the situation under debate.

The question about knowingly putting someone to death was in a seperate question. In my view that was a question about the general use of the death penalty.

For the record, i voted death.

I'm not going to jump on any bandwagons or label you anything, but i'm intrigued to know what gives you the moral superiority in this situation when you advocate such a thing?

If you knowingly put someone to death (or murder as it's commonly known), or even advocate it puts you in a position that you are just as bad as those who kill?

What gives you the right to take a life?

in my view if we had the death penalty as an option then the criminal knows what could await them...

I think if you believe capital punishment would have prevented the bulger killing, you're really barking up the wrong tree fella.

you think these kids thought through their actions?

Putting the body on railtracks in an attempt for it to be totally destroyed beyond recognition tells me they did.

. However, it could deter the thief holding up the post office from killing the post master for example.

how would that help in the bulger case? :?

He asked me a question about the death penalty, not the bulger case.

I stand by my original statement.

Is it your intention just to come on this site and repeatedly hurl mindless and incorrect insults at other posters on VT?

Incorrect in your opinion, which isn't one i particularly value.

Actually, when you are talking about me then my knowledge of what I intend carries more weight than your uninformed opinion.

That was, after all, what you were hinting at when you said 'guess'.

Just to jog your memory on occasions Chindie has labled me, a racist, a moron, scum, On this thread he has said i was "stealing air from the populace" which is a polite way of wishing me dead Plus numerous other insults and snide remarks.

No need to jog my memory - if you revisit the one particular thread then you'll see that Chindie pointed out that I had spoken to him about what he had posted.

So as i say I stand by my original statement and include you in it.

So, just for clarification, you are calling me an 'apologist for scum', are you?

You need it clarified?

For the record, i voted death.

I'm not going to jump on any bandwagons or label you anything, but i'm intrigued to know what gives you the moral superiority in this situation when you advocate such a thing?

If you knowingly put someone to death (or murder as it's commonly known), or even advocate it puts you in a position that you are just as bad as those who kill?

What gives you the right to take a life?

I'm not claiming moral superiority,

in my view if we had the death penalty as an option then the criminal knows what could await them... I know some will argue it is no deterrent, but you will always get certain members of society for whom the law means nothing. However, it could deter the thief holding up the post office from killing the post master for example.

My opinion isn't one i come too lightly, i did question my view on the death penalty for those who abuse children, based on the thought that if a child abuser knew he would be hung if caught, would that increase the likely hood of them also murdering their victim(s)?

I stand by my original statement.

Is it your intention just to come on this site and repeatedly hurl mindless and incorrect insults at other posters on VT?

Incorrect in your opinion, which isn't one i particularly value.

Just to jog your memory on occasions Chindie has labled me, a racist, a moron, scum, On this thread he has said i was "stealing air from the populace" which is a polite way of wishing me dead Plus numerous other insults and snide remarks. So as i say I stand by my original statement and include you in it.

For the record, i voted death.

No option for death following extensive medical experimentation.

I wonder if there is anyone in this 'discussion' that is willing to admit that they feel sorry for how Venables has been treated and portrayed in the media?

Any individuals you want to ask directly, because I see no-one who has at all suggested even minutely that end.

I havent either.

Thats why I asked the question?? :?

Apologies.

It just seemed a rather loaded question. I am too cynical at times.

(I think you could forgive me that after being accused of being an example of the reasoning of all societies failings, and as 'an apologist for the most of heinous of crimes', a statement only outdone in it's stupidity by the fact it remains in this thread).

I think your statement about Venables orignal sentence being right because it meant he lost his childhood beats anything i have ever wrote, in terms of stupidity.

So what, he lost 8 years.... a child lost a life, a mother lost her chance to see her child's first day at school, first sports day, first nativity play, and countless other things a parent hopes to see.

I stand by my original statement.

Well obviously the strict life licence business hasn't worked or he wouldn't have ended up in back in prison.

You don't understand a life licenee do you? It's ok to admit it. The life licence isn't capable of stopping someone from doing something - it's to discourage it, harshly, by dint of punishment if they do it. If they then do it, the life licence simply gives justification for immediate reimprisonment. It is effectively just a terms of their release. In fact, if it has ended up with someone being back in prison by breaking those terms, it's worked swimmingly, has it not?

After reading many post's from you on varying subjects, from child abusers to murderers.... I can only take away one thing from them, and that is you are an apologist for those who commit the most heinous crimes.

Right, well you're wrong then. At what point did I make out that what they did was ok? I said it was an horrific and disgusting crime. Engage your brain, should you own one (I don't hold out hope).

you try to say it's people like me, who want to bring back hanging who are the problem with society.

You are. You're reactionary idiots who seem incapable to understand compassion or, at the least humane end of things, hypocrisy.

Take a long hard look in the mirror, you'll see the real problem staring right back at you.

I won't, as I won't see anything than a normal person with an a modicum of intelligence.

So in your view a life license is only successful if the person on the life license is sent back to prison for committing a crime or allegedly committing a crime? So for all we know someone else could have been murdered but thats ok because it gives you proof the the licenses "work swimmingly"

I have compassion for the victims of crime. I have no compassion for those who murder and rape, i have no wish to rehabilitate such people. It's quite simple you take a life then you forfeit yours. My preferred option would be death, others may prefer absolute life imprisonment, either way the offender wouldn't be free to do it again.

Old enough to know certain VT-ers are apologists for scum like Venables.

I said a few pages back.....

Actually, you accused one person of being that.

Your post above says VT'ers[sic].

Care to expound?

Have a guess....

If I were to make accusations like that, I'd firstly have the balls to name the VT'ers in question, and then provide a quote to back it up.

Unless of course you're still clinging to the notion that just because someone doesn't want to see a ten year old executed, they condone him taking a child's life. It can't be that though surely, as that has been exposed as a ridiculous argument several times already.

I said a few pages back.....

If I had my way shit ripostes would be a hanging offence

This. Although I'd probably let 10 year olds off for that too, I probably came up with those sort of replies when I was about that age.

How old are you starsailor?

Old enough to know certain VT-ers are apologists for scum like Venables.

Was that a "Note to self" ?

No, it was a suggestion for you. Apologies if you have difficulty with it.

You really need to take your own advice then.

So you'd value the life of your child at 6 months....... or whatever the judge told you it was worth.......

No, if I had a child I wouldn't value their life at 6 months. I'd be of the opinion that one couldn't assign a 'value' to his/her life; their life would be priceless.

I'm rather of the opinion that one can't assign values to individual's lives (other than my own) and that's why I regard them as precious and not to be taken.

Says it all really.

Your idiotic assumption says much more about your lack of ability to comprehend what other people say and mean.

Next time, engage your brain before posting, please.

Was that a "Note to self" ?

So if you were in this situation and the judge decided to give a sentence of just 6 months because the offender was only 10 years old, you would sit back and accept it.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself:

I wouldn't want to have any input (other than the input of any other member of society) in to the level of punishment.

Are you wiggy in disguise? :?

So you'd value the life of your child at 6 months....... or whatever the judge told you it was worth.......

Says it all really.

Still not a straight answer.

Yes it is.

I apologize that I have taken time to think about the situation and written, in response, a detailed answer to your question.

Please oh please just give me a straight answer as to what you as a parent would WANT as punishment.

What the criminal justice system deemed correct which is the same as saying I wouldn't want to have any input in to the level of their punishment.

I can't believe that you fail to comprehend what I mean by that. :?

So if you were in this situation and the judge decided to give a sentence of just 6 months because the offender was only 10 years old, you would sit back and accept it.

No that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm here saying that people seem to underestimate the punishment they got.

If you wished me to say whether I thought the punishment they got was fitting, then I would say yes it was. As 10 year old children they were given sentences that were to last until, at least, their adulthood, after which they were held on strict life licenses. I think that's quite a harsh punishment for a child, and fitting of the crime.

But that's largely because I believe our justice system is pretty good, and also because I don't believe in the death penalty for any one let alone children.

Well obviously the strict life licence business hasn't worked or he wouldn't have ended up in back in prison.

After reading many post's from you on varying subjects, from child abusers to murderers.... I can only take away one thing from them, and that is you are an apologist for those who commit the most heinous crimes.

you try to say it's people like me, who want to bring back hanging who are the problem with society.

Take a long hard look in the mirror, you'll see the real problem staring right back at you.

Because he tortured and murdered her son?

Which has nothing to do with the justice system. He was tried and convicted and punished (as the law decreed) for the crime. Everything from the moment he was caught had absolutely nothing to do with her, other than that she see what thee justice system decrees her son's murderer's punishment.

Why she is consulted by the government, or feels she has any entitlement to that, or any say in what goes on in the justice system, is what I am concerned with here. It's not her business.

So when two 10 years olds brutalise and murder a 2 year old child of yours you will just accept the paltry sentence given to them and then accept it when they get released under new names and given everything your child was robbed of? And then when one of the killers allegedly offends again, you won't want to know why it happened or why you weren't informed?

Jon Venables, one of the killers of James Bulger, must not be "prejudged" by speculation over allegations he faces, ministers have said.

Venables, now 27, is back in jail after breaching the terms of his 2001 release in which he was given a new identity.

The Sunday Mirror alleged his recall to prison was linked to images of child abuse, but Ed Balls and Harriet Harman refused to be drawn on these claims.

James's mother, Denise Fergus, has said Venables should now lose his anonymity.

The Sunday Mirror also claims that Venables had sparked concerns by using drugs and revealing his past.

Justice Secretary Jack Straw would only say that he faces "extremely serious allegations" and the government was determined to ensure that justice was done.

Labour's Deputy Leader, Harriet Harman, told the BBC the government would not be drawn on the report.

"I'm not saying whether it's true or not because I don't want to comment on it," she said.

"At the time that Venables was sentenced, it was said that he should keep his anonymity and, as a general principle, we want to make absolutely sure that nobody can get off a criminal offence by saying 'I can't get a fair trial, there's been too much publicity'."

The stance was backed by Children's Secretary Ed Balls, who said it was important to ensure the public was protected.

"It was a terrible crime, the scars of James Bulger's death are very deep for his family, [and] for all of us," he told Sky News.

"It was right for people to try rehabilitation but the first thing always has to be making sure the public are safe.

"Now you'll understand I'm not going to say anything about this case because I don't want to prejudge any court case and I think it's really important the media and politicians don't prejudge and therefore potentially put at risk any further court action."

Mrs Fergus, 42, is due to meet Jack Straw next week to press him on the reasons for Venables' recall. But Mr Straw is not expected to divulge the reasons.

Venables' solicitor at the time of his trial, Laurence Lee, blamed the Ministry of Justice for creating what he called the "speculation show".

'Serious questions'

"If they'd come clean and give us some information about what he'd done this wouldn't be happening now," he told BBC Radio 5 live.

"I think if we'd been at least drip fed some information this wild speculation wouldn't have gone out of control like it has now."

Shadow home secretary Chris Grayling said he was more concerned about newspaper reports of Venables' activities than discovering the allegations he faced.

"This is somebody who has been released from prison, who is supposed to be on licence, is supposed to be under the control of the probation bodies," he told Sky News.

"Something has gone wrong here and there will certainly be serious questions to be asked."

Venables, alongside Robert Thompson, served eight years for the murder of two-year-old James.

Both boys became the UK's youngest murderers, as 10-year-olds, after abducting James from a shopping centre in Bootle, Merseyside, in February 1993.

His battered body was later found by children playing on a freight railway line more than two miles away.

The Beeb

Right. Can someone please tell me quite why Mrs Fergus needs to be involved in this at all, and also what her calls for his anonymity are going to achieve? (at least in what we perceive to be a civilised nation?).

I feel for her, of course. But I'm not entirely sure why she's so involved.

If someone murdered a child of mine i would make it my business to know what they were doing every second of everyday for the rest of their life.

Of course if i had my way, this wouldn't be long cos they would be swinging from the gallows about half hour after being convicted.

it shouldn't have even been at the stage where we we 2 down against a struggling championship team

We probably shouldn't have got to that stage but this was a cup game and I'm not so sure that the championship team in question is struggling as much as it was when they put Liverpool out, for instance.

Having said that we shouldn't have got to that stage, we did and we found something extra and we came back to win the game. We did the same kind of thing in the second leg of the CC semi.

I'm not going to kid myself that we were great but I'm not going to fool myself into thinking that coming out in the second half and showing what we were made of (with some pretty good football, too) is not something to applaud.

However at the level we are hoping to be competing at next season you can't just decide to perform for 15mins a game. MON needs to instill that "15minute" mentality into them for thr whole 90mins.

I can't actually believe people think this is acceptable............ if we turn up for the semi final with the same attitude we had for 75% of this game we are going to get massacred.

Playing for 25% of the game just isn't going to get us Champions League football, it's not even going to get us Europa League, the team aren't putting in a full shift, yet people are happy to accept it because we won.

Just not good enough in my book........ it shouldn't have even been at the stage where we we 2 down against a struggling championship team.

Yes, 12 manic minutes got us the upper hand, but what happened then, once we had a goal lead? We sat bank again and encouraged Reading to take the game to us again, without offering much in way of reply.

Overall performance 5/10. Lets not get blinded by the fact we came from behind, we should never have let it get to that situation.

And to think i was derided by a certain VT-er in last weeks Ratings and reactions thread for the Final...........

I saw then we were lacking passion........... no one really wants to play for us, it's just an easy 70grand a week........