ender4 Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 if the law was that murder automatically meant the death sentence, after the first few well-publicised cases, it would make people think. maybe televise the death, for added shock-horror. show the video in school to 16 year olds. I doubt that would stop anything. It's like telling kids they can't do this or that cause it's dangerous. they'll always think it wouldn't happen to them and they're smarter than that. Or try to get people to quit smoking by showing horror pictures. It simply doesn't help. horror pics on fag packets have been proven to reduce cigs consumption. it doesn't eradicate the problem (smoking or murder), but its just the first step towards sorting it out. even if it reduces violent crime by 5%, thats a good step forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 Wait a minute here - you cant say the US because the US also have the firearms laws that are different to our own. I would certainly think that being allowed to own and operate your own weapon is more of an influence on the murder rate than getting a few volts up your arse 20 years after being convicted for it.... oh right so the US is the only western state with captital punishment but we are not allowed to reference because they clearly do not prove the detterent point if you look at different states, with or without it so do we compare with any country, maybe Saudi and would you be happy to have Sharia law then ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amsterdam_Neil_D Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 (remember he knew what he was doing and where he would end up)..... that to me is the key I don't actually believe for one second he though he would get captured at the point of the crime nor many others, they always think that they will get away with it "IT" being the important word. They knew what they were doing was wrong otherwise there is nothing to get away with, if you see what i mean. He was alone in his own house so there was no way he could be caught at the time but I am going of the point.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Santa_Rosa Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 Why should everyone have to pay to keep this scum in existence? Cut off their heads. Seriously? That's how you'd do it? Decapitation? Guillotine or a big bloke with a bloody great axe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomer Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 oh right so the US is the only western state with captital punishment but we are not allowed to reference because they clearly do not prove the detterent point if you look at different states, with or without it so do we compare with any country, maybe Saudi and would you be happy to have Sharia law then ? Not true. Japan and Singapore both enforce capital punishment and both seem to have lower violent crime levels than the UK. Not that I support capital punishment or believe the levels of crime are directly related to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrissmith921 Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 Wait a minute here - you cant say the US because the US also have the firearms laws that are different to our own. I would certainly think that being allowed to own and operate your own weapon is more of an influence on the murder rate than getting a few volts up your arse 20 years after being convicted for it.... oh right so the US is the only western state with captital punishment but we are not allowed to reference because they clearly do not prove the detterent point if you look at different states, with or without it so do we compare with any country, maybe Saudi and would you be happy to have Sharia law then ? No - you cannot compare however our country to theirs - there are far bigger influences to their crime problems than there are to ours. However, given the fact that they virtually all are carrying shooters, they have a much bigger gap between rich and poor (both these factors will increase murder rate significantly) etc - the fact their murder rate remains just about as low as ours should actually point to Capital Punishment being a very good deterent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MR.Smalljob Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 some people in this world are so evil that they need to die!! so yes ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b23avfc Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 I personally think we've made too much over Ashley's miss... Oh wait.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ender4 Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 some people in this world are so evil that they need to die!! so yes ! :nod: that sums it up for me. evil must die, for good to flourish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazdavies79 Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 It's barbaric, uncivilised and.......it doesn't work. It's a no brainer. No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 Wait a minute here - you cant say the US because the US also have the firearms laws that are different to our own. I would certainly think that being allowed to own and operate your own weapon is more of an influence on the murder rate than getting a few volts up your arse 20 years after being convicted for it.... oh right so the US is the only western state with captital punishment but we are not allowed to reference because they clearly do not prove the detterent point if you look at different states, with or without it so do we compare with any country, maybe Saudi and would you be happy to have Sharia law then ? No - you cannot compare however our country to theirs - there are far bigger influences to their crime problems than there are to ours. However, given the fact that they virtually all are carrying shooters, they have a much bigger gap between rich and poor (both these factors will increase murder rate significantly) etc - the fact their murder rate remains just about as low as ours should actually point to Capital Punishment being a very good deterent? the US's according to good old Wiki has a murder rate of almost double !! in fact if you look at the murder rate for just England and Wales it is nearly three times bigger because Scotland's is higher it brings up the UK average so you still say it is a deterrent ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Santa_Rosa Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 Lock them up, and lock them up for life. I don't care how much it costs (and if you think state execution is a cheap option, I'd imagine it's anything but). Either killing is wrong, or it isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 In certain cases IF it is clear cut then yes .. I.e Milosevic (not savo) Saddam , Adams , Blair etc If we have someone who we are fairly certain about but not there is any reasonable doubt about my suggestion would be that when they are locked up at night they are accidentally left with a belt on their trousers ..if they are guilty and they know it they will use the belt and top themselves ... if they don't then we consider a life sentence , just in case we might kill an innocent person ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted November 17, 2008 VT Supporter Share Posted November 17, 2008 I'm against it, although it would be really convenient in many cases. For me it's the principle: don't kill people. Also the principle of 'an eye for an eye' was, I believe, introduced to LIMIT reprisals at a time when people tended to go over the top without a second thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarry Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 Do the people advocating a violent death, also think Islamic states are barbaric? Because that would be a little hypocritical. And I challenge anyone who wants to see prison "harder" to stay at home indoors for, let's say 3 months. You're allowed to go to work but as soon as the day is sone, back home. No friends or relatives can visit, no spedcial food or booze is allowed, but you're allowed your music, TV, dvds, playstations etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrissmith921 Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 Do the people advocating a violent death, also think Islamic states are barbaric? Because that would be a little hypocritical. And I challenge anyone who wants to see prison "harder" to stay at home indoors for, let's say 3 months. You're allowed to go to work but as soon as the day is sone, back home. No friends or relatives can visit, no spedcial food or booze is allowed, but you're allowed your music, TV, dvds, playstations etc. Shouldnt be even allowed them. Brick walls, a space to lay down (not a bed) and a pot to p*ss in. Why on earth should they have ANY luxuries? Absolute basic survival is what it should be. I couldnt care less if theyre bored either. Perhaps they would be so bored they (heres a revolution-inspring idea) they might not commit a crime next time??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrissmith921 Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 Wait a minute here - you cant say the US because the US also have the firearms laws that are different to our own. I would certainly think that being allowed to own and operate your own weapon is more of an influence on the murder rate than getting a few volts up your arse 20 years after being convicted for it.... oh right so the US is the only western state with captital punishment but we are not allowed to reference because they clearly do not prove the detterent point if you look at different states, with or without it so do we compare with any country, maybe Saudi and would you be happy to have Sharia law then ? No - you cannot compare however our country to theirs - there are far bigger influences to their crime problems than there are to ours. However, given the fact that they virtually all are carrying shooters, they have a much bigger gap between rich and poor (both these factors will increase murder rate significantly) etc - the fact their murder rate remains just about as low as ours should actually point to Capital Punishment being a very good deterent? the US's according to good old Wiki has a murder rate of almost double !! in fact if you look at the murder rate for just England and Wales it is nearly three times bigger because Scotland's is higher it brings up the UK average so you still say it is a deterrent ? And what about the effect that owning firearms has on those figures? Or can you not accept that the ownership of weapons is a far, far greater influence on that rate than capital punishment is?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted November 17, 2008 VT Supporter Share Posted November 17, 2008 Do the people advocating a violent death, also think Islamic states are barbaric? Because that would be a little hypocritical. And I challenge anyone who wants to see prison "harder" to stay at home indoors for, let's say 3 months. You're allowed to go to work but as soon as the day is sone, back home. No friends or relatives can visit, no spedcial food or booze is allowed, but you're allowed your music, TV, dvds, playstations etc.It would be hard, but I could handle it if I had access to books and music. Hence, the best way to punish me would be to deprive me of books and music. Or worse, subject me to a constant diet of The Smiths and New Order, etc. (no smiley) I notice that two responses seem to be coming up regularly: (1) The risk of executing an innocent person by mistake is a good reason to not use capital punishment, and (2) To compensate for this, prison should be very, very tough ("hell on earth" to quote one poster) - no luxuries, regular abuse by screws and inmates allowed, etc. But taking those two together, what about when you imprison an innocent person by mistake? (Which has certainly happened enough times in recent years). I can see an argument for a death sentence ONLY when the evidence is utterly overwhelming, e.g. you would have to have a confession AND several witnesses AND forensic evidence. A case like the recent Barry George one for example, would not be watertight enough. Having said all that, I've voted against. People should not kill other people - in crime, in war, or in the justice system. That may be flying in the face of sad experience, but you have to start somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonno_2004 Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 I personally think we've made too much over Ashley's miss... Oh wait.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonno_2004 Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 I tend to come down on either side, you'd always run the risk of an innocent man/women being punished, but when you think of hard working tax-payers paying for Ian Huntley's internet connection I wouldn't lose too much sleep over him going for the chop. sometimes you ought not believe what is in tabloids .. and as for money it would cost as much to hang someone then to keep them because of the numerous legal fees that would go on as for any deterrent effect it has, I doubt it would have stopped Huntley or child P's killers just like we still have mass murders in the states so no detterent, does nto save money one thing left is the revenge factor and that does no one any good I see what you're saying Ian but at the end of the day, tax payers are still paying for him, whether it's in the papers or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts