FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Being back the noose?

Being back the noose?

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

A lot of people are so sick of violent crime, including but not exclusively murder, rape and terrorism, that they would like to see the reintroduction of the death penalty. This, they believe, would act as a deterrent in most cases, and would obviously put a stop to many reoffenders.

Others believe this would be an infringement of the human rights of the offenders. They also fear that innocent people could be put to death if found guilty of crimes they did not commit.

Personally I would bring it back, not hanging but lethal injection. Prison obviously doesn't work, and the likes of the now late Cray twins, Sutlcliff and many other evil murdering bastards are living the life of Riley at huge tax payers expense.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ouple in LancashireCouple over a year ago

in Lancashire

No its a barbaric act and not one that the state should carry out in revenge..

given the state of the joint enterprise law at the moment you would have several people dozens of people either in the ground or on death row because they did not 'foresee' that someone they were with was going to kill someone, some were 15 when they were given life..

the state taking the life of one innocent person is not worth the risk..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *anes HubbyCouple over a year ago

Babbacombe Torquay

Only if we can have Thunder Dome....."Two men enter, One man leave"

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

So Sutcliff deserved to live? Huntley deserved to live? How about Copeland, surely all you liberals begrudge having to pay for him to live a life of luxury?

Only three examples, but there are too many to mention and I have a nightshift to prepare for.

I would have hanged all three afore mentioned evil bastards, plus the many more who have been proven beyond all doubt to be beyond the pale.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oncupiscentTonyMan over a year ago

Kent

Obviously works as a deterrent in US

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *anes HubbyCouple over a year ago

Babbacombe Torquay

"Obviously works as a deterrent in US "

Exactly....

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

It definitely stops the worst criminals from reoffending.

I ask again, do Sutcliff, Huntly and Copeland deserve to live at our expense??

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oncupiscentTonyMan over a year ago

Kent

"It definitely stops the worst criminals from reoffending.

I ask again, do Sutcliff, Huntly and Copeland deserve to live at our expense??"

So does prison, how many people have Sutcliffe Huntley and Copeland killed since they've been locked up?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ouple in LancashireCouple over a year ago

in Lancashire

"It definitely stops the worst criminals from reoffending.

I ask again, do Sutcliff, Huntly and Copeland deserve to live at our expense??"

google Stephan Kiszko

Sally Clarke..

actually just google miscarriage of justice..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rincessvenusCouple over a year ago

Hull

prisons dont reform any one we need better deterents

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *LCCCouple over a year ago

Cambridge

I completely agree, the death penalty will be a huge deterrent for suicide bombers especially.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ouple in LancashireCouple over a year ago

in Lancashire

"prisons dont reform any one we need better deterents"

yes we do..

really interesting piece on channel 4 last week in Norway I think where there reoffending rate is very low and the aim is to rehabilitate and educate where necessary not just lock up..

it costs more but when the cost is weighed up by what the ones who don't go on to reoffend don't commit when they leave then its probably a success..

we wont I feel ever accept such a system as we seem to prefer the cheapest option where some come out better equipped as criminals than when they went in..

no wonder that after nearly 10,000 prison officers being cut over the last few years that the Justice secretary Liz Truss had to announce panic measures last week..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"It definitely stops the worst criminals from reoffending.

I ask again, do Sutcliff, Huntly and Copeland deserve to live at our expense??

So does prison, how many people have Sutcliffe Huntley and Copeland killed since they've been locked up?"

Obviously none, but that doesn't mean they can't, or that they don't get the opportunity. That Charles Bronson chap killed enough people while in prison, it is not impossible. Had he been put to sleep it would have stopped him for good.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

OP I fully understand and agree with the frustration and anger you are voicing on the part of many people. I also understand and sympathise with your desire to see harsher punishments for violent crime and the logic behind the return of the death penalty (for some crimes) which I would support.

There is definitely something wrong with the punishment system we have today. The average sentence for killing a person in this country is now 6 years imprisonment, and like it or not we now seem to place a greater value on the life of a killer than on their victim. That is just plain wrong.

Year on year we are told that the levels of crime and in particular violent crime are declining. However our prisons are overcrowded and we have record levels of incarceration. We also have all those who are held as virtual prisoners in their own homes by means of electronic tag. Added to this we have police who fail to report serious violence (including rape) to keep the crime figures down.

To add to this misery our present government has presided over the largest cuts to law enforcement and the welfare state in modern history to facilitate the upward redistribution of wealth, this is a disgraceful state of affairs!

However having said all the above we have to recognise that something round 50% of all crime is drugs related and this also applies to our prison population. There is no doubt in my mind that this is the real problem and it has been caused and fuelled by the 'war on drugs'. Further it has to be recognised that 'war on drugs' has not just failed in this country but has failed worldwide and is responsible for failure of many states, the destabilisation of many regions of the world, the growth of extremely violent organised crime worldwide and of course the waste of so many resources that could have been used for the benefit of the worlds population rather than in a futile attempt to control human nature.

I would therefore suggest that rather than continuing to aggravate an already deplorable situation by further punishing those who have fallen victim to a futile crusade or have been disposed by hubris and waste of resources those crusaders placed in positions of power, we should change direction and stop fighting unwinnable drugs wars. Because if we do not stop travelling the path we are on now we will return to a time where we hanged ordinary people of stealing bread while the elite roamed the country by day helping themselves to anything they wanted before returning to their castles and raising the drawbridge for the night.

Just my thoughts on the subject. But maybe worth discussing.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

Funnily enough I agree re the war on drugs. The reason being that I know how easily these recreational drugs could be legalised and manufactured safely by pharnaceutical companies, then sold legally and safely by pharmacists.

But that is for another discussion.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I don't believe we should bring back capital punishment but I can fully understand the view of people who do , I have wavered on this several times tho . And life should mean life . Unless innocence is proved !

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"A lot of people are so sick of violent crime, including but not exclusively murder, rape and terrorism, that they would like to see the reintroduction of the death penalty. This, they believe, would act as a deterrent in most cases, and would obviously put a stop to many reoffenders.

Others believe this would be an infringement of the human rights of the offenders. They also fear that innocent people could be put to death if found guilty of crimes they did not commit.

Abomination!

No decent country can endorse it.

It's a slur on the humanity of the USA. And lethal injection? Dear gods, it's worse than hanging!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"It definitely stops the worst criminals from reoffending.

I ask again, do Sutcliff, Huntly and Copeland deserve to live at our expense??"

Yes.

Yes!

YES!

How many more times, YES!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I didn't actually realise people believed the "deterrent" bullshit line.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I don't believe we should bring back capital punishment but I can fully understand the view of people who do , I have wavered on this several times tho . And life should mean life . Unless innocence is proved ! "

Life does, of course, mean life. As I'm sure you're aware, although not in prison, once released you are out on licence. I'm not sure of exactly what that entails but I'm certain it's no picnic.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I didn't actually realise people believed the "deterrent" bullshit line. "

People believe all sorts of crap!

Like the ones who believe that smacking children works. As the NSPCC advert a few years ago said: "if smacking works, why do you have to keep doing it?"

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

Life does, of course, mean life. As I'm sure you're aware, although not in prison, once released you are out on licence. I'm not sure of exactly what that entails but I'm certain it's no picnic."

So you think being on MAPPA 3 actually stops murdeters reoffending?

It is intrusive, but the offenders can still give em the slip,

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I didn't actually realise people believed the "deterrent" bullshit line.

People believe all sorts of crap!

Like the ones who believe that smacking children works. As the NSPCC advert a few years ago said: "if smacking works, why do you have to keep doing it?""

crap? Why has the homicide rate more than doubled since 1964?

and by the way, I'm not for the death penalty, that is too easy and mistakes can happen

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

If it actually worked I'd be up for it but all the evidence shows it doesn't, so there's no real point in it, as it just becomes about revenge and lowers your own morality..... And to be honest we ain't got alot of morality to spare

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

If a killer is in prison he can't do it again , and a wrong can be corrected if he isn't !

But a release is hard for a victims family !

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I didn't actually realise people believed the "deterrent" bullshit line.

People believe all sorts of crap!

Like the ones who believe that smacking children works. As the NSPCC advert a few years ago said: "if smacking works, why do you have to keep doing it?"

crap? Why has the homicide rate more than doubled since 1964?

and by the way, I'm not for the death penalty, that is too easy and mistakes can happen"

oh, and those figures were worked out with the exclusion of Harold Shipman, seeing as he killed 174 on his own, allegedly

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Prison shouldn't be the full punishment tho ! Prisoners should give back while they are inside !

I'm talking lifers here !

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"If a killer is in prison he can't do it again , and a wrong can be corrected if he isn't !

But a release is hard for a victims family !"

Sorry man, but murders still can reoffend in prison. I earlier mentioned the case of the man who called himself Charles Bronson, who didn't just kill fellow inmates, but also prison officers. That was just an example. He wouldn't have been able to do this had he been put out of his misery after the first murder..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Four words "Innocent until proven guilty" and given how fast technology is advancing in forensics, I don't think any PM would like to accidentally condemn a innocent man to death.

That said I believe that life in prison should mean just that, unless evidence is found which changes said situation

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Life does, of course, mean life. As I'm sure you're aware, although not in prison, once released you are out on licence. I'm not sure of exactly what that entails but I'm certain it's no picnic.

So you think being on MAPPA 3 actually stops murdeters reoffending?

It is intrusive, but the offenders can still give em the slip,"

Frankly, I have no idea if it does or not. But then, I suspect you don't either.

Do we have any figures for reoffending?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I didn't actually realise people believed the "deterrent" bullshit line.

People believe all sorts of crap!

Like the ones who believe that smacking children works. As the NSPCC advert a few years ago said: "if smacking works, why do you have to keep doing it?"

crap? Why has the homicide rate more than doubled since 1964?

and by the way, I'm not for the death penalty, that is too easy and mistakes can happen"

You need to be a bit careful there, the numbers of murders has gone up, but the murder rate is a different thing as that will be per head of population or some such. I dug out the figures for murders from government stats for 1898 to 2002 but these were absolute, not rate. I couldn't be bothered to get the population figures and work it out, if I was on a computer it would have taken about 10mins but on a tablet, no.

I do accept that, in all likelihood, the murder rate will have gone up too, but not double.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Four words "Innocent until proven guilty" and given how fast technology is advancing in forensics, I don't think any PM would like to accidentally condemn a innocent man to death.

That said I believe that life in prison should mean just that, unless evidence is found which changes said situation "

Forensics is interesting, there is increasing research to suggest that fingerprints are not nearly as reliable as we once thought. DNA is also, in the forensic use, not, perhaps, as reliable either.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

A couple of years ago I was a prosecution witness against a man who I had believed to be a friend.

To cut a long story short, he had been chucked out by his wife and I put him up at my house.

After 8 weeks of him stinking my house out and eating all out food, I got a friend who used to let rooms to take him in. He didn't pay his rent and she changed her locks and kicked him out.

While searching his belongings for something she could sell to settle the debt, she found a stack of disturbing photos, two of which I recognised to be his young step daughter,

I don't know what else the police found out when they investigated him. But he got 20 years.

He will no doubt get parole sometime soon, and might well pay me a visit. I doubt they will even tell me when he is released. The whole judicial system is shit, reform is definitely needed.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *edangel_2013Woman over a year ago

southend

For Lifers released on license, reoffending is very low. Murderers in particular rarely go on to murder again.

It's the less serious crimes that have high repeat offending rates, for example drug dealing, ABH and GBH.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

Life does, of course, mean life. As I'm sure you're aware, although not in prison, once released you are out on licence. I'm not sure of exactly what that entails but I'm certain it's no picnic.

So you think being on MAPPA 3 actually stops murdeters reoffending?

It is intrusive, but the offenders can still give em the slip,

Frankly, I have no idea if it does or not. But then, I suspect you don't either.

Do we have any figures for reoffending?"

A little out of date, but I would assume that the figures have gone up not down.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8388224/Up-to-2000-serious-offences-committed-by-reoffending-criminals-every-year.html

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

When I say life should mean life I mean life in prison for the family of the victims sake , unless they are ok with a release !

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Life does, of course, mean life. As I'm sure you're aware, although not in prison, once released you are out on licence. I'm not sure of exactly what that entails but I'm certain it's no picnic.

So you think being on MAPPA 3 actually stops murdeters reoffending?

It is intrusive, but the offenders can still give em the slip,

Frankly, I have no idea if it does or not. But then, I suspect you don't either.

Do we have any figures for reoffending?

A little out of date, but I would assume that the figures have gone up not down.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8388224/Up-to-2000-serious-offences-committed-by-reoffending-criminals-every-year.html"

OK, that relates to violent crime, but doesn't address murder at all does it?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *edangel_2013Woman over a year ago

southend

Life does, of course, mean life. As I'm sure you're aware, although not in prison, once released you are out on licence. I'm not sure of exactly what that entails but I'm certain it's no picnic.

So you think being on MAPPA 3 actually stops murdeters reoffending?

It is intrusive, but the offenders can still give em the slip,

Frankly, I have no idea if it does or not. But then, I suspect you don't either.

Do we have any figures for reoffending?

A little out of date, but I would assume that the figures have gone up not down.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8388224/Up-to-2000-serious-offences-committed-by-reoffending-criminals-every-year.html

OK, that relates to violent crime, but doesn't address murder at all does it?"

It also mentions that for most it is their first serious offence. So none of them would have been hung anyway. It isn't helping your hanging argument, however, it does show that something drastic needs to change with our sentencing and prison systems.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

I think the article proves that violent criminals are likely to reoffend when released. How can anyone not see that that includes murderers? Is murder not a violent crime now?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Murder should be life in prison. !

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Murder should be life in prison. ! "

Unfortunately unless they get 6 life sentences like Copeland, it is not going to happen. They were even talking about letting babes in the woods killer Russel Bishop out, even to come back to Brighton.

They are fucking clueless!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I think the article proves that violent criminals are likely to reoffend when released. How can anyone not see that that includes murderers? Is murder not a violent crime now? "

Of course murders are violent crime!

But that's where your arguing falls down:

We're talking about stopping murderers reoffending, I ask if we know, and you produce data that doesn't relate to murderers reoffending.

The data shows (and for now we'll set aside the source you quote' reliability) that violent criminals reoffend, but there could be zero murderers in that, we just don't know.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Murder should be life in prison. !

They are fucking clueless!"

I know , tell me about it

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Life does, of course, mean life. As I'm sure you're aware, although not in prison, once released you are out on licence. I'm not sure of exactly what that entails but I'm certain it's no picnic.

So you think being on MAPPA 3 actually stops murdeters reoffending?

It is intrusive, but the offenders can still give em the slip,

Frankly, I have no idea if it does or not. But then, I suspect you don't either.

Do we have any figures for reoffending?"

We do have some figures from the ONS:

"The Homicide Index shows that in the year ending March 2015 there were 3 convictions for homicide offences for suspects who had a previous conviction for homicide. As more cases are concluded at Crown Court, this figure may change. For homicide offences recorded in the year ending March 2014, there were 6 people convicted of homicide who had a previous conviction for homicide.

For homicide offences recorded between the year ending March 2005 and the year ending March 2015 in total, 48 people who were convicted of a homicide offence had a previous conviction for homicide (less than 1%). Of these 48 offences, the second conviction was for murder in 41 cases."

Note that this is homicide, not murder.

So, we see 10 year average of 4.1 repeat offences for murder per year.

We see a year on year halving (note that this is not, as asserted by others, an increase) in the repeat for homicide in 2013 to 2015. In the last year there were 3 repeat homicide offences.

Just to give some idea of scale, also from ONS, some 99 000 people deaths were attributable to smoking in Great Britain in 2013. In the same year there were 1713 road fatalities in Great Britain. In 2011 there were 1584 deaths due ro drugs misuse in Great Britain (source drugwise.co.uk).

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"It definitely stops the worst criminals from reoffending."

So the figures I've posted show that the existing system is pretty good at stopping reoffending don't they?

4.1 per year over 10 years, given the population size and deaths by other things, that's not statistically relevant.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"For Lifers released on license, reoffending is very low. Murderers in particular rarely go on to murder again.

It's the less serious crimes that have high repeat offending rates, for example drug dealing, ABH and GBH."

Spot on, see figures above, good call!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

"So the figures I've posted show that the existing system is pretty good at stopping reoffending don't they?

4.1 per year over 10 years, given the population size and deaths by other things, that's not statistically relevant."

Lets see if I have this right, the existing system is pretty good because ONLY 41 people have been KILLED by someone RELEASED FROM PRISON AFTER BEING PREVIOUSLY CONVICTED OF KILLING!

ARE YOU FOR REAL?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"So the figures I've posted show that the existing system is pretty good at stopping reoffending don't they?

4.1 per year over 10 years, given the population size and deaths by other things, that's not statistically relevant.

Lets see if I have this right, the existing system is pretty good because ONLY 41 people have been KILLED by someone RELEASED FROM PRISON AFTER BEING PREVIOUSLY CONVICTED OF KILLING!

ARE YOU FOR REAL?"

In 10 years. Get a grip on stats, compared to everything else, that's insignificant.

For example, if road deaths went up 4.1 a year we wouldn't bat an eyelid.

If deaths from smoking went up 4.1 a day we probably wouldn't either.

So yes, with an understanding of figures and an ability to assess risk, I am for real.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

"In 10 years. Get a grip on stats, compared to everything else, that's insignificant.

For example, if road deaths went up 4.1 a year we wouldn't bat an eyelid.

If deaths from smoking went up 4.1 a day we probably wouldn't either.

So yes, with an understanding of figures and an ability to assess risk, I am for real.

Really?

And you would willing stand in front of them all and tell them that the killing of a member of their family by a previously convicted killer was insignificant compared to everything else?

I'm sure the families would take great solace from your understanding of figures and ability to assess risk. Or would your ability to assess risk suggest that maybe you would need an armed escort to get you out of the room alive after telling them that?

Of course if a killer once caught is never released there is no risk to calculate, has that occurred to you?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"In 10 years. Get a grip on stats, compared to everything else, that's insignificant.

For example, if road deaths went up 4.1 a year we wouldn't bat an eyelid.

If deaths from smoking went up 4.1 a day we probably wouldn't either.

So yes, with an understanding of figures and an ability to assess risk, I am for real.

Really?

And you would willing stand in front of them all and tell them that the killing of a member of their family by a previously convicted killer was insignificant compared to everything else?

Of course if a killer once caught is never released there is no risk to calculate, has that occurred to you? "

I am surprised that given the figures are so high any are ever let out. I'm against capital punishment but it makes a mockery of the phrase 'if just one innocent person is executed then it shouldn't be allowed". Yet 4 innocent people are murdered every year unnecessesarily and that should be allowed

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

The truth is it is like health and safety at work. The calculation is not one of risk but of relative cost, and it is cheaper to have 4.1 people killed each year by previously convicted and released killers than keeping all killers incarcerated for life.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

well if it's about cost should they be executed then? I'm sure there would be less than 4 innocent people hung every year

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

well if it's about cost should they be executed then? I'm sure there would be less than 4 innocent people hung every year"

to be honest for many years I was in the anti camp, but with the rise in totally callus killings because it only means a few years in prison provided you make the right noises in court I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that there needs to be an option of the death penalty available to the courts.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"In 10 years. Get a grip on stats, compared to everything else, that's insignificant.

For example, if road deaths went up 4.1 a year we wouldn't bat an eyelid.

If deaths from smoking went up 4.1 a day we probably wouldn't either.

So yes, with an understanding of figures and an ability to assess risk, I am for real.

Really?

And you would willing stand in front of them all and tell them that the killing of a member of their family by a previously convicted killer was insignificant compared to everything else?

Of course if a killer once caught is never released there is no risk to calculate, has that occurred to you?

Best post on this subject I have seen

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"In 10 years. Get a grip on stats, compared to everything else, that's insignificant.

For example, if road deaths went up 4.1 a year we wouldn't bat an eyelid.

If deaths from smoking went up 4.1 a day we probably wouldn't either.

So yes, with an understanding of figures and an ability to assess risk, I am for real.

Really?

And you would willing stand in front of them all and tell them that the killing of a member of their family by a previously convicted killer was insignificant compared to everything else?

Of course if a killer once caught is never released there is no risk to calculate, has that occurred to you? "

Well, I'd rather explain the to thise 4 families than to the 500 or so perpetrators' families that you would execute!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Although my even handed evaluation of risk has been attacked by a couple on here, we do need, I feel, to address some of the wilder claims that have been made.

It has been said the murder rate is increasing. Well, although the ONS logs homicide in this context rather than murder (unless we look further into he figures anyway),

"To put the actual number of homicides in context, incidence rates show the volume of offences as a proportion of the resident population. The incidence rate for homicide remains relatively low, with 9.0 homicides recorded per million population during the year ending March 2015, the lowest homicide rate since the late 1970s (for example, there were 8.5 homicides per million population in 1977). If the 172 homicides committed by Harold Shipman recorded in the year ending March 2003 are excluded from the analysis, homicide rates peaked in the year ending March 2002, at 15.2 offences per million population.

Compared with most other offences, homicides are relatively low-volume events, and year-on-year variations need to be interpreted with some caution. However, an analysis of trends (discussed in ‘Statistical interpretation of trends in homicides’ later in this chapter) shows the reduction in homicides in recent years was statistically significant and indicates a real fall in this offence rather than merely a consequence of random year-to-year variation."

So, despite claims in this thread of murders increasing, in fact, the figures show the opposite!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

well if it's about cost should they be executed then? I'm sure there would be less than 4 innocent people hung every year

Please give figures for this rise to which you refer, since as we know, the numbers of murders has been dropping since 2002.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

bringing back capital punishment is pie in the sky for day dreamers .... it ain't gonna happen

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

"Well, I'd rather explain the to thise 4 families than to the 500 or so perpetrators' families that you would execute!"

Firstly I have never advocated for an automatic death penalty for all. What I said was

"there needs to be an option of the death penalty available to the courts."

Which means that either you are trying to so distort what I have said to justify your first statement that killers released on licence killing 4.1 people a year is OK.

And just to be clear I will give you an example of someone who in my view should most definitely be executed:

Dale Cregan

The man targeted 2 female police officers, ambushed and executed them in a grenade and gun attack. Then he fled the area and turned himself in an hour later.

The reason for the attack was because the police were "hounding his family". The fact that he was a member of a crime family and was wanted for a previous murder in a pub seems to not have mattered to him. What did matter was to surrender to police in a way the ensured an 'armed response officer' would not have an opportunity to shoot him dead.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ouple in LancashireCouple over a year ago

in Lancashire

"bringing back capital punishment is pie in the sky for day dreamers .... it ain't gonna happen"

it allows some to vent at the wishy washy liberals despite there being consensus across all the governing parties..

even Ukip are rightly opposed..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eavenNhellCouple over a year ago

carrbrook stalybridge

"Well, I'd rather explain the to thise 4 families than to the 500 or so perpetrators' families that you would execute!

Firstly I have never advocated for an automatic death penalty for all. What I said was

there needs to be an option of the death penalty available to the courts.

Which means that either you are trying to so distort what I have said to justify your first statement that killers released on licence killing 4.1 people a year is OK.

And just to be clear I will give you an example of someone who in my view should most definitely be executed:

Dale Cregan

The man targeted 2 female police officers, ambushed and executed them in a grenade and gun attack. Then he fled the area and turned himself in an hour later.

Therefore I would be willing to bet a penny to a pound that if he had known he would face the death penalty for his actions 2 women would most definitely be alive (and so I expect would the man he executed in a pub). "
very doubtful of all that Cretan and his ilk believe there own legend and think they are some sort of hero which clearly they are not but in the circles they frequent they are so couldn't careless about the norms of society the threat of the death penalty is no deterrent to these people in fact it would only add to there supposed ledgend in the underclass of this country look at the reverence and notoriety the Krause are held in

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eavenNhellCouple over a year ago

carrbrook stalybridge

Oh and to add I would be against the death penalty reasons

The Birmingham six

The Guildford four

Stephan clizco

Nuff said realy

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *edangel_2013Woman over a year ago

southend

Cregan would have murdered regardless. He is in no doubt held in high regard by his family, this would only be elevated had he died for his crimes.

Not withstanding the fact that the average person spends over 10 years on Death Row in America, and the most common cause of death for those inmates is actually natural causes.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"It definitely stops the worst criminals from reoffending.

I ask again, do Sutcliff, Huntly and Copeland deserve to live at our expense??

So does prison, how many people have Sutcliffe Huntley and Copeland killed since they've been locked up?

Had he ever killed Anyone?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Oh and to add I would be against the death penalty reasons

The Birmingham six

The Guildford four

Stephan clizco

Nuff said realy "

The Cardiff Three

Eddie Browning

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

"Although my even handed evaluation of risk has been attacked by a couple on here, we do need, I feel, to address some of the wilder claims that have been made.

It has been said the murder rate is increasing. Well, although the ONS logs homicide in this context rather than murder (unless we look further into he figures anyway),

Even handed? I think not!

You quote ONS figures, as do all who hold your view to justify their position.

However in your even handed approach to the statistics you fail to take into account the changes in law and medicine that have made killings that would have been slam dunk murder convictions in the late 70's into manslaughter, motoring offences and plain simple 'accidents'!

I have to say that when reading your posts on this subject i find myself drawing a conclusion that is not flattering to you in the least. Either you know very little about the subject you claim to have an understanding of (the statistics), and have not given any thought to how the statistics you so glibly quote may have been manipulated to cover up the fact that a very popular and vote winning liberal policy to the removal of the death penalty has been responsible for a steady climb in the premeditated killing rates in the UK. And rather than run the risk losing votes by the reintroduction of an unpopular punishment successive governments of all hues have manipulated and corrupted the law in order to make it appear that the murder rate is stable.

Or you are fully aware of this subterfuge, and you are actively promoting it.

Either way I have to say you have slipped in my esteem.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

To those who quote the 'IRA' miscarriages of justice in particular and other miscarriages as well. I would say for many years I shared your sentiments and views. But when I started to examine the reality of not having a death penalty I reluctantly came to the conclusion that like CND the ACPL are just plain wrong and the evidence to prove it is in front of us all. It is anti-intuitive but it is overwhelming and we refuse to see it at our peril.

I accept that if we return the death penalty to statute there need to be an overwhelming disincentive to all in positions of power to ensure that police and prosecutors would never risk either ignoring or suppressing evidence of innocence or manufacturing evidence of guilt. This would be very difficult, but I suggest not impossible.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Although my even handed evaluation of risk has been attacked by a couple on here, we do need, I feel, to address some of the wilder claims that have been made.

It has been said the murder rate is increasing. Well, although the ONS logs homicide in this context rather than murder (unless we look further into he figures anyway),

Even handed? I think not!

You quote ONS figures, as do all who hold your view to justify their position.

Or you are fully aware of this subterfuge, and you are actively promoting it.

Either way I have to say you have slipped in my esteem. "

You can, I am sure, imagine how gutted I am at your last comment.

But as to the rest, please quote cited figures in rebuttal, I await with interest.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"To those who quote the 'IRA' miscarriages of justice in particular and other miscarriages as well. I would say for many years I shared your sentiments and views. But when I started to examine the reality of not having a death penalty I reluctantly came to the conclusion that like CND the ACPL are just plain wrong and the evidence to prove it is in front of us all. It is anti-intuitive but it is overwhelming and we refuse to see it at our peril."

Let's talk in simple language now:

You've some pretty impressive statements her, put up or shut up.

Quote the evidence to which you refer, if it is so overwhelming then it should be easy enough.

Naturally, with cited sources (every GCSE student should know how to cite and evaluate a source as I am sure you're aware) so that we can check it for ourselves.

As before, I await with interest.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

"Although my even handed evaluation of risk has been attacked by a couple on here, we do need, I feel, to address some of the wilder claims that have been made.

It has been said the murder rate is increasing. Well, although the ONS logs homicide in this context rather than murder (unless we look further into he figures anyway),

Even handed? I think not!

You quote ONS figures, as do all who hold your view to justify their position.

Or you are fully aware of this subterfuge, and you are actively promoting it.

Either way I have to say you have slipped in my esteem.

You can, I am sure, imagine how gutted I am at your last comment.

But as to the rest, please quote cited figures in rebuttal, I await with interest.

I could just quote figures but you would just question them and their voracity so instead I will give you a simple guide to discovering the truth for yourself.

it is not too difficult and you may find the journey enlightening:

Google the year of the suspension of the death penalty and the year or the repeal of the death penalty.

Then look up the Home Office (England and wales) Scottish and N.Ireland Office to get the UK murder figures for those years and the following years.

You will note that after the suspension of the death penalty there was a rise in the murder rate. however after the repeal of the death penalty the figures doubled!

You will also note that they plateaued and have been quite constant ever since with a tendency to repeatedly slowly climb and then significant drop. However if you then check the legal definition of murder and the height of the legal bar to gain a conviction for murder and the subsequent changes to those definitions and when those changes were enacted by both primary and secondary legislation you will notice a coloration between the figures that would be classed as 'statistically significant'.

Further if you used the murder definition of the 60's with a minor change to take into account medical advances in the field of prolonging life, you will quickly see that the ONS and therefore the home Office and Government figures for murder are in reality fictitious.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

"Let's talk in simple language now:

You've some pretty impressive statements her, put up or shut up.

Quote the evidence to which you refer, if it is so overwhelming then it should be easy enough.

Naturally, with cited sources (every GCSE student should know how to cite and evaluate a source as I am sure you're aware) so that we can check it for ourselves.

As before, I await with interest."

See my last post above. I am not your student to do do your own research. However if you need help in planning the research I'll draw you a map to help you find your way.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I could just quote figures but you would just question them and their voracity so instead I will give you a simple guide to discovering the truth for yourself.

it is not too difficult and you may find the journey enlightening:

Google the year of the suspension of the death penalty and the year or the repeal of the death penalty.

Then look up the Home Office (England and wales) Scottish and N.Ireland Office to get the UK murder figures for those years and the following years.

You will note that after the suspension of the death penalty there was a rise in the murder rate. however after the repeal of the death penalty the figures doubled!

If you quote without sources then I most certainly would question their veracity. So quote and source.

I have zero intention of researching your argument for you. You have impuned my approach but yours is one of unsustained statements.

In the absence of cited figures or evidence to support your argument, I am forced to conclude that no such evidence exists, which means that what you say could be true or could be total bolocks. Who can tell?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Let's talk in simple language now:

You've some pretty impressive statements her, put up or shut up.

Quote the evidence to which you refer, if it is so overwhelming then it should be easy enough.

Naturally, with cited sources (every GCSE student should know how to cite and evaluate a source as I am sure you're aware) so that we can check it for ourselves.

As before, I await with interest.

See my last post above. I am not your student to do do your own research. However if you need help in planning the research I'll draw you a map to help you find your way.

No friend, I am well qualified and experienced in research thank you.

But you seem to miss the essential point: I have made a claim supported by data. You have made various counter claims, completely unsupported. It is, of course, up to you to support your own claims, not to treat your opposition as incapable.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Sometimes its better to take justice into your own hands whilst looking after friends and family

Look after your own.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

No, the death penalty should not be brought back. We are better than that.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Sometimes its better to take justice into your own hands whilst looking after friends and family

Look after your own."

put that bloody gun down you

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"No, the death penalty should not be brought back. We are better than that. "

I really used to believe this was true. And vehemently hope it still is!

But the post-Brexit tone in the country, I'm now not so sure

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I do have doubts sometimes but I still wouldn't bring it back , but I do wonder sometimes

But life should mean that !

Life imprisonment , it would give comfort to a victims family !

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"No, the death penalty should not be brought back. We are better than that.

I really used to believe this was true. And vehemently hope it still is!

But the post-Brexit tone in the country, I'm now not so sure

I'm still trying to be optimistic.

And if one good thing comes of Brexit, it'll be that no prime minister is going to risk a referendum again.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"No, the death penalty should not be brought back. We are better than that.

I really used to believe this was true. And vehemently hope it still is!

But the post-Brexit tone in the country, I'm now not so sure

I'm still trying to be optimistic.

And if one good thing comes of Brexit, it'll be that no prime minister is going to risk a referendum again. "

You're right there!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

If you mean a referendum on the death penalty , I'm sure no P M would risk it , tho I'm sure a majority would vote for it to come back .

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"If you mean a referendum on the death penalty , I'm sure no P M would risk it , tho I'm sure a majority would vote for it to come back ."

Referendum for anything!

They'd be mad to after the fuss this one has caused!

If the majority of the country would actually vote for it then we're in a really, really sad place!

I used to think this country was, with a few exceptions, a forward looking, tolerant, modern, wonderful place to live basically.

Now, I see intolerance far too often, a society where many look back to some utopian view of Britain as this Xanadu thst it never was, with views more appropriate to the middle ages than the twentyfirst century*.

It is deeply worrying!

* it may be enlightening to start a thread on corporal punishment and another on whether we should torture suspects. I'm not going to as I am too worried that the answers would be so foul as to be vomit inducing.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

OK I'll bite.

In 1965 the death penalty was abolished.

At that time the definition of murder was:

The deliberate killing of a person, or the killing of a person where the intention was to do them 'grievous bodily harm', or the killing of a person during the commissioning of a crime, where the person has the protection of the crown and dies within 1 year and 1 day of the assault.

It is a simple definition of murder and there is no confusion as to where the bar is set.

However in 2015 one Harry Clarke killed 6 people in a Glasgow street while commissioning an ongoing crime (being in charge of a vehicle through fraud while knowing he was a danger to others). What was he charged with? Dangerous driving! Apparently there was not enough evidence to even get a conviction for causing death by dangerous driving. The 6 deaths were accidental!

How about that for an example of how todays statistics have no relationship to those from the time of capital punishment?

And here are the unmodified HO murder figures from 1960 to 2012:

1960 282 1970 396 1980 549 1990 555 2000 792

1961 265 1971 459 1981 499 1991 623

1962 299 1972 480 1982 557 1992 581

1963 307 1973 465 1983 482 1993 565

1964 296 1974 599 1984 537 1994 632

1965 325 1975 508 1985 536 1995 663

1966 364 1976 488 1986 563 1996 584

1967 414 1977 418 1987 599 1997 650

1968 420 1978 471 1988 547 1998 629

1969 395 1979 561 1989 525 1999 760

2000/01 891

2001/02 1048

2002/03 853

2003/04 868

2004/05 765

2005/06 759

2006/07 753

2007/08 651

2008/09 640

2009/10 608

2010/11 636

2011/12 550

You will note that the example given of 6 killings given at the start of this post do not count as even homicides.

So just look at the figures above and remember how much the law has changed since the 60's. Today you can attack someone, kill them and say 'I didn't mean to' and you will be charged with manslaughter. You can kill someone by running them over while doing stupid speeds to escape police and you get charged with causing death by dangerous driving, you can train a dog to attack on command and have it kill for you and and the worst you can expect is to be charged with having an out of control dog!

As I said the ONS figures are a scandalous cover up!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"bringing back capital punishment is pie in the sky for day dreamers .... it ain't gonna happen"

We ain't going to leave the EU lock stock & barrel but people can still discuss it

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"bringing back capital punishment is pie in the sky for day dreamers .... it ain't gonna happen

We ain't going to leave the EU lock stock & barrel but people can still discuss it

discuss it by all means, but it still ain't gonna happen

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"OK I'll bite.

In 1965 the death penalty was abolished.

At that time the definition of murder was:

It is a simple definition of murder and there is no confusion as to where the bar is set.

How about that for an example of how todays statistics have no relationship to those from the time of capital punishment?

And here are the unmodified HO murder figures from 1960 to 2012:

1960 282 1970 396 1980 549 1990 555 2000 792

1961 265 1971 459 1981 499 1991 623

1962 299 1972 480 1982 557 1992 581

1963 307 1973 465 1983 482 1993 565

1964 296 1974 599 1984 537 1994 632

1965 325 1975 508 1985 536 1995 663

1966 364 1976 488 1986 563 1996 584

1967 414 1977 418 1987 599 1997 650

1968 420 1978 471 1988 547 1998 629

1969 395 1979 561 1989 525 1999 760

2000/01 891

2001/02 1048

2002/03 853

2003/04 868

2004/05 765

2005/06 759

2006/07 753

2007/08 651

2008/09 640

2009/10 608

2010/11 636

2011/12 550

You will note that the example given of 6 killings given at the start of this post do not count as even homicides.

As I said the ONS figures are a scandalous cover up! "

OK, I'll take a look.

What's your source?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"OK I'll bite.

In 1965 the death penalty was abolished.

At that time the definition of murder was:

It is a simple definition of murder and there is no confusion as to where the bar is set.

How about that for an example of how todays statistics have no relationship to those from the time of capital punishment?

And here are the unmodified HO murder figures from 1960 to 2012:

1960 282 1970 396 1980 549 1990 555 2000 792

1961 265 1971 459 1981 499 1991 623

1962 299 1972 480 1982 557 1992 581

1963 307 1973 465 1983 482 1993 565

1964 296 1974 599 1984 537 1994 632

1965 325 1975 508 1985 536 1995 663

1966 364 1976 488 1986 563 1996 584

1967 414 1977 418 1987 599 1997 650

1968 420 1978 471 1988 547 1998 629

1969 395 1979 561 1989 525 1999 760

2000/01 891

2001/02 1048

2002/03 853

2003/04 868

2004/05 765

2005/06 759

2006/07 753

2007/08 651

2008/09 640

2009/10 608

2010/11 636

2011/12 550

You will note that the example given of 6 killings given at the start of this post do not count as even homicides.

As I said the ONS figures are a scandalous cover up! "
.

I think there is something in those numbers and law changes.... However i would add that the UK started moving to unleaded petrol in the late 80s early 90s and banned it by 2000, there's actually quite a bit of research to show violence linked to lead in the blood stream!.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eavenNhellCouple over a year ago

carrbrook stalybridge

"I do have doubts sometimes but I still wouldn't bring it back , but I do wonder sometimes

But life should mean that !

Life imprisonment !"
worked with a guy out on licence and his life was a nightmare .regulaly stopped in his car whilst going to and from work in early hours . called in "for checks " on a regular basis .where he lives and who he has a relationship with monitored and that will be untill he goes in the ground all through getting in a stupid fight where someone else used a knife to kill someone so yeah hes got this for life

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

"I think there is something in those numbers and law changes.... However i would add that the UK started moving to unleaded petrol in the late 80s early 90s and banned it by 2000, there's actually quite a bit of research to show violence linked to lead in the blood stream!."

I believe I have heard that about lead too, but surely if lead poisoning can cause increased levels of violence because of its effect on the brain from the introduction of unleaded petrol and removal of lead water pipes then the levels of violence and therefore killing, and therefore murders should be declining.Even taking the raw data at face value there is still an 2/3 fold increase in the murder rate. If you then modify the statistics to take into account changes in the law and the reduction in lead poisoning affected killings than the growth in murder is even greater than I realised.

As I always say I did not reach my decision to change my position on the death penalty quickly or lightly. I am a very reluctant convert to the pro capital punishment fold.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I do have doubts sometimes but I still wouldn't bring it back , but I do wonder sometimes

But life should mean that !

Life imprisonment !worked with a guy out on licence and his life was a nightmare .regulaly stopped in his car whilst going to and from work in early hours . called in "for checks " on a regular basis .where he lives and who he has a relationship with monitored and that will be untill he goes in the ground all through getting in a stupid fight where someone else used a knife to kill someone so yeah hes got this for life "

Was he convicted of murder ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ary_ArgyllMan over a year ago

Argyll

Be careful about murder rates going up and down. From the Home Office website:-

Caution is needed when looking at longer-term homicide trend figures, primarily because they are based on the year in which offences are recorded by the police rather than the year in which the incidents took place. For example, the 172 homicides attributed to Dr Harold Shipman as a result of Dame Janet Smith’s inquiry took place over a long period of time but were all recorded by the police during the year ending March 2003. Also, where several people are killed by the same suspect, the number of homicides counted is the total number of victims killed rather than the number of incidents. For example, the victims of the Cumbrian shootings committed by Derrick Bird on 2 June 2010 are counted as 12 homicides rather than one incident in the year ending March 2011 data.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

"worked with a guy out on licence and his life was a nightmare .regulaly stopped in his car whilst going to and from work in early hours . called in "for checks " on a regular basis .where he lives and who he has a relationship with monitored and that will be untill he goes in the ground all through getting in a stupid fight where someone else used a knife to kill someone so yeah hes got this for life "

Life a nightmare...

Monitored for life...

Where he goes who he is in a relationship with and friends are...

Stupid fight...

What do you expect? The man has a violent history therefore is violent, made a deliberate choice to arm himself before going out, he got into an argument and deliberately produced the weapon he had previously armed himself with and and used it to murder the person he got into an argument with. If I came into contact with this man I would want to be informed and if any member of my family or friends come in contact with him I would hope that they would also be warned that they are interacting with such a dangerous individual.

Or do you think I am exaggerating his potential danger? And if so how would you feel about your daughter and grandchildren sharing a roof with him?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

"Be careful about murder rates going up and down. From the Home Office website:-

I read that too. Now let me interpret...

Don't take any notice of the fact that over the past 40 years (despite all the changes we have made to the law, that we will not draw any attention to) that the muder rate has tripped because we can always pick years where the numbers drop and give a general excuse to explain spikes and troughs in order to divert attention from the reality of the numbers.

We have spent hours, weeks and months trolling through the statistics looking for examples to prove that there is nothing to see here. Honest.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

As I always say I did not reach my decision to change my position on the death penalty quickly or lightly. I am a very reluctant convert to the pro capital punishment fold."
.

Neuroscience is really in its infancy in understanding the effects of heavy toxins on the brain,i belive they'll have a much better understanding in the coming decade with advancement in technology

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *mmabluTV/TS over a year ago

upton wirral

We need more prisons that are very nasty not like we have now.IE no heating,only bread and water to eat and no parole,also hard labour,any problems put them in chains.

All the human rights people should remember that these savages took away other peoples human rights.Death penalty to good for them

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

"Neuroscience is really in its infancy in understanding the effects of heavy toxins on the brain,i belive they'll have a much better understanding in the coming decade with advancement in technology"

Is that a slight step backwards I detect? LoL

Of course you are correct, and I am not for one moment suggesting that removing lead poisoning should have reduced the rates of violence, because I don't know.

However I was countering what i see as a red herring.

Fact is all we know are the raw numbers and the changes to legislation that have effected those numbers.

I have come to the conclusion that just like the war on drugs our leaders and the establishment are so invested in the course set in the mid 60's that regardless of the evidence and the cost to society the die has been cast and nothing short of revolution will be allowed change our course. I would compare our adherence to the notion that capital punishment has no place in the UK with the USA's insane belief that the way to reduce gun crime is to have more guns and more powerful guns held by more people rather than remove guns from the general population.

And yes I am very cynical when it comes to human behaviour.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Neuroscience is really in its infancy in understanding the effects of heavy toxins on the brain,i belive they'll have a much better understanding in the coming decade with advancement in technology

Is that a slight step backwards I detect? LoL

Of course you are correct, and I am not for one moment suggesting that removing lead poisoning should have reduced the rates of violence, because I don't know.

However I was countering what i see as a red herring.

Fact is all we know are the raw numbers and the changes to legislation that have effected those numbers.

And yes I am very cynical when it comes to human behaviour."
.

No not really, we can't say for definite yet that lead toxin can cause violent behaviour but there is quite a bit of evidence to show that!.

I've no doubt the figures are manipulated by liberalism in general because that's been the general direction of society as a whole, having said that from my personal experience my children's generation are no where near as badly behaved as my generation as a whole but the worst of the kids today are probably behaving worse than the worse kids of my generation if you follow me

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *at69driveMan over a year ago

Wisbech and A47 corridor

Others believe this would be an infringement of the human rights of the offenders. They also fear that innocent people could be put to death if found guilty of crimes they did not commit.

A classic example is the Birmingham six. There was comtamination of evidence and confessions being beaten out our people .

Even now evidence can be tampered with or become contaminated . If scientists in the lab fail to follow correct procedures the wrong result can be produced .

People such as Ian Huntley had a very poor start in life and in general people who committ crimes such as his come from broken homes .

Baby shaking syndome has also proved to be incorrectly diagnosed in many cases. Tbe solicitor Sally Clarke is an example . Sadly she subsequently committed suicide .

Whilst I agree that punishment should fit the crime hanging would mean killing innocent people . In any event I am personally totally against it .

If it is an consolation prisons are horrible places and that she be sufficient punishment in itself .

I have seen the inside of a Cat A prison on various occasions ( as a visitor ) and can say that it is not a pleasant experience .

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ouple in LancashireCouple over a year ago

in Lancashire

Others believe this would be an infringement of the human rights of the offenders. They also fear that innocent people could be put to death if found guilty of crimes they did not commit.

A classic example is the Birmingham six. There was comtamination of evidence and confessions being beaten out our people .

Even now evidence can be tampered with or become contaminated . If scientists in the lab fail to follow correct procedures the wrong result can be produced .

People such as Ian Huntley had a very poor start in life and in general people who committ crimes such as his come from broken homes .

Baby shaking syndome has also proved to be incorrectly diagnosed in many cases. Tbe solicitor Sally Clarke is an example . Sadly she subsequently committed suicide .

Whilst I agree that punishment should fit the crime hanging would mean killing innocent people . In any event I am personally totally against it .

If it is an consolation prisons are horrible places and that she be sufficient punishment in itself .

I have seen the inside of a Cat A prison on various occasions ( as a visitor ) and can say that it is not a pleasant experience . "

agree

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

"Sadly no court verdict or the evidence presented is full proof.

A classic example is the Birmingham six. There was comtamination of evidence and confessions being beaten out our people .

Even now evidence can be tampered with or become contaminated . If scientists in the lab fail to follow correct procedures the wrong result can be produced .

People such as Ian Huntley had a very poor start in life and in general people who committ crimes such as his come from broken homes .

Baby shaking syndome has also proved to be incorrectly diagnosed in many cases. Tbe solicitor Sally Clarke is an example . Sadly she subsequently committed suicide .

Whilst I agree that punishment should fit the crime hanging would mean killing innocent people . In any event I am personally totally against it .

If it is an consolation prisons are horrible places and that she be sufficient punishment in itself .

I have seen the inside of a Cat A prison on various occasions ( as a visitor ) and can say that it is not a pleasant experience . "

I agree with what you say with regard to the IRA convictions, in fact I remember Lord Lane (the then 'Master of The Rolls') saying that there would be no need for appeals if we had the death penalty because the Guildford 4 and Birmingham 6 would have been rightly put to death. And as such I fully sympathise with your position, I used to share it.

However you need to consider the other side of the equation too.

Namely that by refusing to give the courts the option of the death penalty and in so doing accept that there are going to be mistakes and some innocent people will be put to death as a result of false evidence, we sentence in the region of 600 innocents to death by murderers (and steady climbing) each year (and that is not taking into account the artificial lowering of numbers by changing the law).

Of course there is the defence to my charge that we do not kill the 600, they are killed by criminals. But that is the Pontius Pilate defence and 2000 years after he washed his hands and said 'my hands are clean of this' he is remembered as the man who crucified Christ.

Personally I would rather history remembered us as the people who recognised that we had made a mistake and accepted that doing the right thing by the most of our society would mean accepting the blame when we get it wrong, and looking for ways to improve the system. Rather than the generation that was so degenerate we would rather leave hundreds or thousands of our country(wo)men to die just so we could claim our hands were clean of the blood of maybe 10 or 20.

Just a thought.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *at69driveMan over a year ago

Wisbech and A47 corridor

"For Lifers released on license, reoffending is very low. Murderers in particular rarely go on to murder again.

It's the less serious crimes that have high repeat offending rates, for example drug dealing, ABH and GBH."

An interesting post which has just jogged my memory . With a few exceptions , I think that those in prison for murder cause less trouble and are better behaved than most prisoners .

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

"An interesting post which has just jogged my memory . With a few exceptions , I think that those in prison for murder cause less trouble and are better behaved than most prisoners . "

To be honest that does not surprise me.

I served in the forces and know that contrary to popular belief, killing is easy, living with the guilt of killing is the hard thing to do.

However having said that there are many who become hardened to violence and some even get a kick out of the ultimate feelings of power that can come from taking a life.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"We need more prisons that are very nasty not like we have now.IE no heating,only bread and water to eat and no parole,also hard labour,any problems put them in chains.

All the human rights people should remember that these savages took away other peoples human rights.Death penalty to good for them"

Clearly a Game of Thrones fan!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"We need more prisons that are very nasty not like we have now.IE no heating,only bread and water to eat and no parole,also hard labour,any problems put them in chains.

All the human rights people should remember that these savages took away other peoples human rights.Death penalty to good for them"

The "human rights" people? You don't believe in human rights? That seems a strange thing to take pride in.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"We need more prisons that are very nasty not like we have now.IE no heating,only bread and water to eat and no parole,also hard labour,any problems put them in chains.

All the human rights people should remember that these savages took away other peoples human rights.Death penalty to good for them

The "human rights" people? You don't believe in human rights? That seems a strange thing to take pride in."

I find it interesting that there are a number on here who don't seem to! Especially when our chosen lifestyle on fab is dependent on a tolerant society (for all of us) and human rights (especially for the LGBT community)!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iss_tressWoman over a year ago

London

"So Sutcliff deserved to live? Huntley deserved to live? How about Copeland, surely all you liberals begrudge having to pay for him to live a life of luxury?

Only three examples, but there are too many to mention and I have a nightshift to prepare for.

I would have hanged all three afore mentioned evil bastards, plus the many more who have been proven beyond all doubt to be beyond the pale."

You're very naive if you think capital punishment is a deterrent. If it were countries that have it wouldn't need it because no one would murder, rape etc.

I think a country that will jail you for fraud but give community service for murder should not have the death penalty.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iss_tressWoman over a year ago

London

"Obviously works as a deterrent in US "

Exactly!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

"I find it interesting that there are a number on here who don't seem to! Especially when our chosen lifestyle on fab is dependent on a tolerant society (for all of us) and human rights (especially for the LGBT community)!"

I am not sure if you count me in the number that you think are anti human rights. I can understand how you may think that. But if you critically read and digest what I have said in my posts you will realise that I for one have reluctantly come to the conclusion that guaranteeing that killers will not be killed for their crime in turn results in even more innocents losing all their human rights when they are killed by violent killer criminals. I have to say there comes a point where the rights of the many must take precedence over the rights of the few (even if this means that at times mistakes are made).

My position may seem harsh and uncaring, but on the contrary it is one reached through much soul searching and weighing the benefits against the costs.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

"Obviously works as a deterrent in US

Exactly! "

Not a good example.

The fact is that the life expectancy of a young black male awaiting execution on death row is greater than that of a young black male living in the city housing projects across the USA.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

My position may seem harsh and uncaring, but on the contrary it is one reached through much soul searching and weighing the benefits against the costs. "

No friend, we may clash heads on this issue, but in general, IIRC, your posts seem balanced.

But there are others....!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Obviously works as a deterrent in US

Exactly!

Not a good example.

The fact is that the life expectancy of a young black male awaiting execution on death row is greater than that of a young black male living in the city housing projects across the USA."

Especially if he's driving a car?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

"No friend, we may clash heads on this issue, but in general, IIRC, your posts seem balanced.

But there are others....!"

That is good to know.

To be honest I would really like someone to show me an error in my logic and disprove what I have come to believe is a very unpalatable truth. The same is true about WMD's and atomic weapons in particular, but there my evidence is even more compelling.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Others believe this would be an infringement of the human rights of the offenders. They also fear that innocent people could be put to death if found guilty of crimes they did not commit.

What a terrible suggestion, to hang another human being is wrong

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ralbiswMan over a year ago

Salisbury

FWIW my opinion is everyone should be allowed one chance at rehabilitation post serving sentence. It is the sentence that is too weak... now we have a rather good judicial system in general .... so that has to be allowed to work.

Take every case on its merits. Allow those who are experts in the field make the judgement (which we do generally quite well).

Second offence however, boom hang the bastard!!!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ust_for_laughsCouple over a year ago

Hinckley

Discarding all the other arguments against the death penalty (of which I have lots) for a minute, just bear this in mind; in the 30 years from 1974 to 2014, 314 people sentenced to the death penalty in the US (4.1 of the total number) were subsequently found to be innocent. In what other area of life, other than the CJS, would this be considered acceptable? Would you get on an aircraft if 4.1% of passengers had died in the previous 30 years?

Add in moral arguments, convictions along race and social class lines, juries being unwilling to apply a guilty plea when the death penalty is requested, poor court appointed defence lawyers, the cost of the death penalty, the double jeopardy of someone serving a life term in prison, only to subsequently put to death,the fact that it's proven not to be a deterrence, and it makes the death penalty pretty much a non-starter.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ust_for_laughsCouple over a year ago

Hinckley

Please ignore the typos and grammar, it was posted in a hurry from my phone

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ust_for_laughsCouple over a year ago

Hinckley

Ironically, we had this debate with a number of prisoners, on a course that my Criminology department set up, only this week. Prior to the debate they were 12-5 in favour of the death penalty (turkey's voting for Christmas?), after the debate, they were 15-2 against (with the student cohort virtually mirroring the prisoners' opinions, pre and prior the debate)

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Discarding all the other arguments against the death penalty (of which I have lots) for a minute, just bear this in mind; in the 30 years from 1974 to 2014, 314 people sentenced to the death penalty in the US (4.1 of the total number) were subsequently found to be innocent. In what other area of life, other than the CJS, would this be considered acceptable? Would you get on an aircraft if 4.1% of passengers had died in the previous 30 years?

... do you know the figures for re-offending of released murderers or murders of prison staff by lifers? I always looked at the death penalty not as revenge or punishment but protecting us from people who will always be a threat.

Of course though the main argument against the death penalty is that we can't trust our judicial system.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ust_for_laughsCouple over a year ago

Hinckley

Of course though the main argument against the death penalty is that we can't trust our judicial system."

I don't know the figures but I'm fairly sure I could find them somewhere though. I've worked with murderers who are no that to anyone at all (hadn't been prior to their offence, and certainly aren't now).

Figures from the U.S.:

113 deaths between 1999 and 2008.

62% due to homicide, 38% suicide.

Of the 62%, 65% were committed by inmates, the remainder by co-workers, strangers and family members.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *dwalu2Couple over a year ago

Bristol

No-one intelligent has ever supported the re-introduction of the death penalty.

But as the re-introduction of the death penalty is popular amongst the idiot vote, the only question is why no mainstream political party has advocated its reintroduction.

One can only conclude they have been seriously underestimating the number of idiots in the UK.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ust_for_laughsCouple over a year ago

Hinckley

"No-one intelligent has ever supported the re-introduction of the death penalty.

But as the re-introduction of the death penalty is popular amongst the idiot vote, the only question is why no mainstream political party has advocated its reintroduction.

One can only conclude they have been seriously underestimating the number of idiots in the UK."

A recent survey saw the number of people in favour of the death penalty fall below the number of people against the death penalty for the first time since it's abolition (and yeah, I know how useful polls and surveys have been recently!)

Votes in Parliament on the reintroduction of the death penalty have been overwhelmingly against it in every vote taken since it's abolition.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ust_for_laughsCouple over a year ago

Hinckley

"No-one intelligent has ever supported the re-introduction of the death penalty.

But as the re-introduction of the death penalty is popular amongst the idiot vote, the only question is why no mainstream political party has advocated its reintroduction.

One can only conclude they have been seriously underestimating the number of idiots in the UK."

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *dwalu2Couple over a year ago

Bristol

"No-one intelligent has ever supported the re-introduction of the death penalty.

But as the re-introduction of the death penalty is popular amongst the idiot vote, the only question is why no mainstream political party has advocated its reintroduction.

One can only conclude they have been seriously underestimating the number of idiots in the UK.

Votes in Parliament on the reintroduction of the death penalty have been overwhelmingly against it in every vote taken since it's abolition.

Well that's something to be positive about, at least!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

All this boring rhetoric about how only "stupid" people support this or support that is at best condescending. In the past I dare say it worked in persuading people not to go against mainstream ideology.

Personally I couldn't care a toss what some no marks think of my opinions.

There are still a great many evil people living their lives in relative luxury in long term prison and hospitals for the criminally insane.

The likes of Sutcliff and Huntley really don't deserve to live. It sends the wrong message, and it costs a bloody fortune to keep them safe and alive.

Long periods on death row to make sure they don't get proven to be innocent. But if done correctly, no innocents should be put to death.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

Of course though the main argument against the death penalty is that we can't trust our judicial system."

Yes I can agree with this as an argument against.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"No-one intelligent has ever supported the re-introduction of the death penalty.

But as the re-introduction of the death penalty is popular amongst the idiot vote, the only question is why no mainstream political party has advocated its reintroduction.

One can only conclude they have been seriously underestimating the number of idiots in the UK.

Votes in Parliament on the reintroduction of the death penalty have been overwhelmingly against it in every vote taken since it's abolition.

Well that's something to be positive about, at least!

And it's a long time before any government will be suggesting a referendum on anything again.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ust_for_laughsCouple over a year ago

Hinckley

Long periods on death row to make sure they don't get proven to be innocent. But if done correctly, no innocents should be put to death. "

So, how long do you suggest, just out of interest? And at what point does the period on death row for someone who is genuinely innocent (or not, for that matter) become a 'cruel and unusual punishment'? What you're actually suggesting is the reintroduction of IPP sentences but for people who may not be guilty.

As for sending out the wrong message, the death penalty has been proven time and time again to not be a deterrent, so your only reason for putting the likes of Huntley and Sutcliffe to death is for revenge, not retribution.

Referring to individual cases blurs the issue somewhat as it invokes emotion and the law isn't emotional, it's either lawful or not, emotions don't (or at least shouldn't) come into it. Hence why we have courts to deal with the law and you'd never be able to sit on a jury or be part of a legal team where you had some connection to the crime.

How can killing someone for killing someone be the correct way to demonstrate that killing someone is wrong?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *dwalu2Couple over a year ago

Bristol

"All this boring rhetoric about how only "stupid" people support this or support that is at best condescending. In the past I dare say it worked in persuading people not to go against mainstream ideology.

Personally I couldn't care a toss what some no marks think of my opinions.

There are still a great many evil people living their lives in relative luxury in long term prison and hospitals for the criminally insane.

The likes of Sutcliff and Huntley really don't deserve to live. It sends the wrong message, and it costs a bloody fortune to keep them safe and alive.

Long periods on death row to make sure they don't get proven to be innocent. But if done correctly, no innocents should be put to death. "

Why don't you have a crack at making an intelligent argument in favour of the death penalty?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Long periods on death row to make sure they don't get proven to be innocent. But if done correctly, no innocents should be put to death.

How can killing someone for killing someone be the correct way to demonstrate that killing someone is wrong?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Unless there is a way for us to be able to garrantee 110% that the person is guilty of the crime not just beyond resonable doubt then there is no argument for brining it back.

How many cases have there been where the evidence was so damming at the time but 20-30 years later to be found false?

At least if there is a mistake society can try to make amends, but once hung there is no going back

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *dwalu2Couple over a year ago

Bristol

"Unless there is a way for us to be able to garrantee 110% that the person is guilty of the crime not just beyond resonable doubt then there is no argument for brining it back.

How many cases have there been where the evidence was so damming at the time but 20-30 years later to be found false?

At least if there is a mistake society can try to make amends, but once hung there is no going back

And even if it could be guaranteed 100% (which is just as good a guarantee as 110%, by the way!) that someone was guilty of a crime, there still wouldn't be an argument for bringing back the death penalty.

Other than as an appeal to the idiot vote, of course!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Long periods on death row to make sure they don't get proven to be innocent. But if done correctly, no innocents should be put to death.

How can killing someone for killing someone be the correct way to demonstrate that killing someone is wrong?

This is very hard for me but I reluctantly agree with the above

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ust_for_laughsCouple over a year ago

Hinckley

Long periods on death row to make sure they don't get proven to be innocent. But if done correctly, no innocents should be put to death.

How can killing someone for killing someone be the correct way to demonstrate that killing someone is wrong?

This is very hard for me but I reluctantly agree with the above

I'm a very persuasive debater

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Long periods on death row to make sure they don't get proven to be innocent. But if done correctly, no innocents should be put to death.

How can killing someone for killing someone be the correct way to demonstrate that killing someone is wrong?

This is very hard for me but I reluctantly agree with the above

I'm a very persuasive debater

Lol I'm sure you are

But that isn't why I reluctantly don't want the death penalty

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ust_for_laughsCouple over a year ago

Hinckley

Why don't you have a crack at making an intelligent argument in favour of the death penalty?"

^^^ this! I could have debated in favour of bringing back the death penalty better than the OP has (quite easily, as there's a converse opinion to most of the points I've made...they're wrong but that's by the by!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *at69driveMan over a year ago

Wisbech and A47 corridor

"Unless there is a way for us to be able to garrantee 110% that the person is guilty of the crime not just beyond resonable doubt then there is no argument for brining it back.

How many cases have there been where the evidence was so damming at the time but 20-30 years later to be found false?

At least if there is a mistake society can try to make amends, but once hung there is no going back

"
There are far too many cases of wrongfull conviction to ever justify hanging.

Even DNA evidence can be incorrect if there is contamination or the forsensic scientists fail to follow correct procedures.

If it is any consolation , prisons are horrible places . I have seen the inside of Cat A prisons as a visitor .

Many people committing horrendous crimes have had a very poor start in life and are from broken homes .

Most people sent to prison for life for murder are model prisoners and just want to serve their sentences .

I have seen the issue from both sides . Someone that I knew ( not as a friend ) was sent to prison for life . They had a very sad upbringing .

In another case I knew the victims mother and she actually commented that it was very sad that the accused had no one in court to support him.

Seeking revenge in life probably achieves nothing and only makes you angry .

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

Personally I couldn't care a toss what some no marks think of my opinions.

There are still a great many evil people living their lives in relative luxury in long term prison and hospitals for the criminally insane.

The likes of Sutcliff and Huntley really don't deserve to live. It sends the wrong message, and it costs a bloody fortune to keep them safe and alive.

Long periods on death row to make sure they don't get proven to be innocent. But if done correctly, no innocents should be put to death.

Why don't you have a crack at making an intelligent argument in favour of the death penalty?"

For the very worst offenders there is clearly a case.

I've already mentioned Sutcliff and Huntley. But looking back Myra Hindley, Ian Brady, Rose West, the Cray twins.

Why should they be kept alive? God knows how many thouroughly evil people are still to commit their own horrific crimes, safe in the knowledge that if they get caught, they will still get to live out their lives without a great deal of hardship.

Prison for scum like those mentioned is not the answer, and the way that lifers are managed these days sends out the wrong message.

It's brutal, I know that, but given the down right diabolical wickedness of their crimes, the only logical punishment is death.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Please ignore the typos and grammar, it was posted in a hurry from my phone

why not use the "edit" button bottom left, change your mistakes

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *dwalu2Couple over a year ago

Bristol

Personally I couldn't care a toss what some no marks think of my opinions.

There are still a great many evil people living their lives in relative luxury in long term prison and hospitals for the criminally insane.

The likes of Sutcliff and Huntley really don't deserve to live. It sends the wrong message, and it costs a bloody fortune to keep them safe and alive.

Long periods on death row to make sure they don't get proven to be innocent. But if done correctly, no innocents should be put to death.

Why don't you have a crack at making an intelligent argument in favour of the death penalty?

For the very worst offenders there is clearly a case.

I've already mentioned Sutcliff and Huntley. But looking back Myra Hindley, Ian Brady, Rose West, the Cray twins.

Prison for scum like those mentioned is not the answer, and the way that lifers are managed these days sends out the wrong message.

It's brutal, I know that, but given the down right diabolical wickedness of their crimes, the only logical punishment is death."

Sorry, but I wouldn't class any of that as an intelligent argument at all. It's just your highly questionable opinion, which you've decided to self-label as logic in an attempt to give it some credence.

One simple fact undermines your entire 'argument' - the death sentence already exists in the American penal system, and is no deterrent to the crime you describe. Until you can get past that, you haven't even got a case.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Personally I couldn't care a toss what some no marks think of my opinions.

There are still a great many evil people living their lives in relative luxury in long term prison and hospitals for the criminally insane.

The likes of Sutcliff and Huntley really don't deserve to live. It sends the wrong message, and it costs a bloody fortune to keep them safe and alive.

Long periods on death row to make sure they don't get proven to be innocent. But if done correctly, no innocents should be put to death. "

Absolutely

and the press do not report the crimes committed, murders in the most gruesome way as well as decapitations, absolutely sickening crimes and as you say they can sit in their luxury cell and order take away food at night, I have a friend who works at the Murray Royal secure unit and you would be shocked if you know about some of these crimes of which none are reported in media

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

Personally I couldn't care a toss what some no marks think of my opinions.

There are still a great many evil people living their lives in relative luxury in long term prison and hospitals for the criminally insane.

The likes of Sutcliff and Huntley really don't deserve to live. It sends the wrong message, and it costs a bloody fortune to keep them safe and alive.

Long periods on death row to make sure they don't get proven to be innocent. But if done correctly, no innocents should be put to death.

Absolutely

Yeah but according to the usual suspects, because it doesn't work in the US, it wouldn't work here.

The questions they refuse to answer, relating to some of Britain's most heinous murderers, and whether they deserved to live out their lives after what they have done.

I get sick of going round in circles answering the "what if" style questions.

The truth is that Sutcliff is not only living in luxury compared to a lot of people on the state pension.

Prison officers even have to provide him with a personal bodyguard service.

There are people in prison who tortured children to death, yet they didn't even get proper life sentences. Eventually they will be released!

Using numbers as proof against the death penalty for the worst of the worst is unhelpful, in fact it is pathetic.

Letting the likes of Sutcliff and Huntley live is almost enabling the next generation of evil maniacs. Those in favour of this must be very sad individuals.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Evil maniacs" by their very definition, are evil maniacs who would not be deterred by something like the death penalty. It's got nothing to do with the US, it's just logic and reason.

If a high security facility is your idea of luxury, you should really reconsider some of your life choices.

You may feel certain people don't deserve to live. I don't feel the state has the right to determine who is entitled to live and who is to be exterminated.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Fab Fascists at it again!

Attempting to deconstruct every statement proposing an alternative to their case in order to look superior.

Makes me wonder whether they use the site to seek potential sexual partners, or just sign up to random sites which have fora, in order to propagate their extreme, right-wing views.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *dwalu2Couple over a year ago

Bristol

Personally I couldn't care a toss what some no marks think of my opinions.

There are still a great many evil people living their lives in relative luxury in long term prison and hospitals for the criminally insane.

The likes of Sutcliff and Huntley really don't deserve to live. It sends the wrong message, and it costs a bloody fortune to keep them safe and alive.

Long periods on death row to make sure they don't get proven to be innocent. But if done correctly, no innocents should be put to death.

Absolutely

Yeah but according to the usual suspects, because it doesn't work in the US, it wouldn't work here.

The questions they refuse to answer, relating to some of Britain's most heinous murderers, and whether they deserved to live out their lives after what they have done.

I get sick of going round in circles answering the "what if" style questions.

The truth is that Sutcliff is not only living in luxury compared to a lot of people on the state pension.

Prison officers even have to provide him with a personal bodyguard service.

There are people in prison who tortured children to death, yet they didn't even get proper life sentences. Eventually they will be released!

Using numbers as proof against the death penalty for the worst of the worst is unhelpful, in fact it is pathetic.

Letting the likes of Sutcliff and Huntley live is almost enabling the next generation of evil maniacs. Those in favour of this must be very sad individuals."

So your 'intelligent argument' has boiled down to 'please don't bring facts in to this, I don't like them!'

At least you tried I suppose.