Restoring the Death Penalty in Britain

[SWP's back]

All of you who don't believe in the death penalty, how would you feel if someone raped and killed your child? What about killing your elderley parent, or your wife/missus on the way home one night?

Would you leave the court, happy in the knowledge that they got 15 years? Go home and sit in the kids bedroom or your other half's empty side of the bed, and be glad that justice has been done?

Serious answers only.

I'd kill them myself but I am aware that is revenge, not justice fella.

That goes without saying pal, what i am saying is if they are caught BEFORE you get to them?

I'd want them dead. But again, it is revenge mate.

That's why grieving family members are not the best people to ask.

 

[Skashion]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/07/bring-back-the-saw-instead

The death penalty debate refuses to die – a bit like 17-year-old Willie Francis, who in 1946 was strapped into a chair at Louisiana State Penitentiary and electrocuted, only to wind up screaming for mercy from within his leather hood, selfishly upsetting several onlookers in the process.

The United Kingdom hasn't hanged anyone since 1964, when Peter Allen and Gwynne Evans were simultaneously sent to the gallows, in an audacious end-of-season finale. In the intervening years, the capital punishment argument has resurfaced now and then, usually in the wake of an especially harrowing murder trial, when the mob's a bit twitchy. But it has always been a bit of a non-debate.

Proponents of the death penalty – "nooselovers" or "danglefans", as they like to be known – often come across as a bit old-fashioned, as though they're opposed to progress in all its forms, and might as well be arguing in favour of fewer crisp flavours and slower Wi-Fi. This fusty impression isn't helped when every news article about hanging is illustrated with vintage black and white photographs of Derek Bentley and Ruth Ellis, as if tying a rope around someone's neck and dropping them through a trapdoor in the hope of causing a fatal bilateral fracture of the C2 vertebrae is the kind of behaviour that belongs in the past.

But now the debate has returned with an exciting new technological twist: thanks to the government's exciting e-petition initiative in which any motion attracting over 100,000 signatories becomes eligible for debate in the House of Commons, the danglefans are suddenly on the cutting edge of populist online activism. Or rather they would be, if they were proposing a suitably cutting-edge method of execution. Instead, it's just a load of vague blah about reinstating "the death penalty". What sort of death penalty? The gallows? The chair? The gas chamber? Come on, this is the internet. The least you could do is rustle up a Flash animation depicting precisely how you want these people to be killed. You could even make it interactive: maybe have a fun preamble in which we shake the prisoner's hand in order to guess his weight and adjust the length of the rope accordingly. Or a bit where we get to pull a leather hood over the screaming head of a petrified teenager with learning difficulties, then pull the switch and hear his kidneys boil.

Of course, anyone proposing the use of the noose or the chair is guilty of moral cowardice anyway. Capital punishment is supposed to act as a deterrent, but it doesn't seem to have much effect on crime statistics. This is because most current executions a) employ methods that are as quick and efficient as possible and b) take place behind closed doors – almost as though the people doing it are ashamed of themselves.

What sort of half-arsed half-measure is that? Cold logic dictates that the only way to turn capital punishment into an effective deterrent is to make each killing as drawn-out and public as possible. Maximum agony, maximum publicity. Anything less is a cop-out – and death penalty supporters should have the stones to say so. Stop this placatory talk about breaking people's necks gently with rope. Go the whole hog.

Don't campaign to bring back the gallows – campaign to bring back the saw. The medieval saw. Raise the prisoner by his feet and then saw through him vertically, starting at his arsecrack and ending at his scalp. Suspending him upside down ensures a constant supply of blood to his brain, so he'll remain conscious throughout and provide all manner of usefully lurid screams. In fact with any luck he'll carry on screaming even as his throat is sawn in half, thereby creating a pleasing stereo effect for viewers with home cinema systems. Did I mention the viewers? This is all broadcast live on television, in HD (and even 3D) where available. Maximum agony, maximum publicity.

Not that the broadcast should pander to ghoulish onlookers. It should pander to ghoulish participants. This is the 21st century: public executions can and should be as interactive as possible. So this death-by-vertical-sawing isn't just broadcast live, but broadcast live from the perspective of a camera with a crossbow attached. Viewers at home control the gunsights by tweeting directions such as "Left", "Right", "Up a bit", "Fire", and so on – a bit like ye olde gameshow The Golden Shot, but with approximately 100% more footage of shrieking bisected carcass being shot in the eye with a bolt smeared with excrement. A shot in the eye, incidentally, will win you 5,000 Nectar points and a congratulatory tweet from Paddy McGuinness.

Obviously, not everyone would voluntarily tune in to watch a broadcast that graphic, which is why highlights of each execution would be randomly spliced into other popular programmes – everything from Top Gear to Rastamouse. It would also be compulsory viewing at every school in the land. And children who try to evade its salutary message by closing their eyes will have still images of the precise moment of death beamed directly into their mind's eye using Apple's AirPlay system, as soon as we can establish some means of doing that.

Maximum agony, maximum publicity. It's the only way. It's saw or nothing.

Give em their due, even The Guardian can be right occasionally.

 

[glen quagmire]

It wouldn't make me feel any better to kill them or have them killed, no.

I was raised to believe that 2 wrongs do not make a right and that it only perpetuates the cycle of meaningless and pointless death.

Surely legalised euthanasia, is better than trying to rehabilitate them? Someone who can take the life of a vulnerable human being, will always be able to do so, which makes me think, quick needle, off you pop, the world is a safer place to live in.

The lethal injection isn't quite that simple and it's certainly not humane.

I'm not saying I have the answers but I disagree with state sanctioned revenge killings.

TMQ, you strongly disagree with this, i just as strongly agree with it. Let's just be safe in the knowledge, that this country is never going to re introduce the death penalty, so this topic is null and void really.

 

[TheMightyQuinn]

Surely legalised euthanasia, is better than trying to rehabilitate them? Someone who can take the life of a vulnerable human being, will always be able to do so, which makes me think, quick needle, off you pop, the world is a safer place to live in.

The lethal injection isn't quite that simple and it's certainly not humane.

I'm not saying I have the answers but I disagree with state sanctioned revenge killings.

TMQ, you strongly disagree with this, i just as strongly agree with it. Let's just be safe in the knowledge, that this country is never going to re introduce the death penalty, so this topic is null and void really.

I only hope you're right.

It'd be a backwards step for humanity.

 

[PJMCC1UK]

No generalising here. People want execution as a form of punishment and that's exactly what Sharia advocates.
I'd also like tougher sentencing for serious crimes but believe death by the state is a tad extreme in itself.

Death penalties are a mere part of sharia law. If you seriously believe I want to bring in stoning for adulterers as well as other sharia points then you are generalising my viewpoint

I don't think it's up to you to pick and choose who lives and dies. Sorry to burst your God delusion but you're merely human.

You're talking about killing people yet you think others have the problem?

More arrogant bollocks then.
I'm not choosing who lives or dies in any way. The person who commits the atrocity is merely facing the consequence he or she knew would happen if they commit the crime.
You make out like I'm walking down the street pointing at people and saying 'him''.
Tosh
I wouldn't choose to kill someone just the same as I wouldn't choose to imprison somebody but that person just faces the consequence of their actions
I don't think people have a problem. I believe you have a right to your view. But you cheapen your own argument with silly comments like God delusion.

A person such as Ian Huntley and Roy Whiting knew what they were doing. It wasn't an accident therefore they can face the consequences.
Do you have a delusion to believe you can take somebodies freedom? Or is prison a consequence of someone's actions?

 

[TheMightyQuinn]

Death penalties are a mere part of sharia law. If you seriously believe I want to bring in stoning for adulterers as well as other sharia points then you are generalising my viewpoint

I don't think it's up to you to pick and choose who lives and dies. Sorry to burst your God delusion but you're merely human.

You're talking about killing people yet you think others have the problem?

More arrogant bollocks then.
I'm not choosing who lives or dies in any way. The person who commits the atrocity is merely facing the consequence he or she knew would happen if they commit the crime.
You make out like I'm walking down the street pointing at people and saying 'him''.
Tosh
I wouldn't choose to kill someone just the same as I wouldn't choose to imprison somebody but that person just faces the consequence of their actions
I don't think people have a problem. I believe you have a right to your view. But you cheapen your own argument with silly comments like God delusion.

A person such as Ian Huntley and Roy Whiting knew what they were doing. It wasn't an accident therefore they can face the consequences.
Do you have a delusion to believe you can take somebodies freedom? Or is prison a consequence of someone's actions?

I do not believe in revenge killings.

I don't care if it's the Mafia, the crips, gooch or the state: murder is murder is murder and it's wrong.

By killing Brady or Huntley, you're lowering yourself to their level.

I refuse to judge my standards by those of Brady or Huntley, I'm better than that and under no circumstances do I wish to join them as murderers.

 

[stonerblue]

All of you who don't believe in the death penalty, how would you feel if someone raped and killed your child? What about killing your elderley parent, or your wife/missus on the way home one night?

Would you leave the court, happy in the knowledge that they got 15 years? Go home and sit in the kids bedroom or your other half's empty side of the bed, and be glad that justice has been done?

Serious answers only.

Firstly, show me someone who got 15 years for deliberate murder and rape of a child.

I would kill the fuckers meself. Then i'd be killed by the state for doing it

 

[glen quagmire]

All of you who don't believe in the death penalty, how would you feel if someone raped and killed your child? What about killing your elderley parent, or your wife/missus on the way home one night?

Would you leave the court, happy in the knowledge that they got 15 years? Go home and sit in the kids bedroom or your other half's empty side of the bed, and be glad that justice has been done?

Serious answers only.

Firstly, show me someone who got 15 years for deliberate murder and rape of a child.

I would kill the fuckers meself. Then i'd be killed by the state for doing it

The 15 years was for demonstrative purposes, there are shitloads of murderers walking free now that shouldn't be, who have gone on to take another life. Culling them would leave scores of innocents to enjoy their life, rather than having it brutally snuffed out by someone who doesn't deserve to live themselves.

A good read for do-gooders.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1540632/Convicted-murderers-who-were-set-free-to-kill.html


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...rderer-killed-again-after-release-706972.html

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/live...cumbrian-gunman-derrick-bird-100252-29085800/


http://missingexploited.com/2006/11...again-this-time-16-year-old-stephanie-wagner/


Finally, why do we keep this **** alive, if this is his words?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ady-would-kill-again-if-released-2180286.html

 

[PJMCC1UK]

I don't think it's up to you to pick and choose who lives and dies. Sorry to burst your God delusion but you're merely human.

You're talking about killing people yet you think others have the problem?

More arrogant bollocks then.
I'm not choosing who lives or dies in any way. The person who commits the atrocity is merely facing the consequence he or she knew would happen if they commit the crime.
You make out like I'm walking down the street pointing at people and saying 'him''.
Tosh
I wouldn't choose to kill someone just the same as I wouldn't choose to imprison somebody but that person just faces the consequence of their actions
I don't think people have a problem. I believe you have a right to your view. But you cheapen your own argument with silly comments like God delusion.

A person such as Ian Huntley and Roy Whiting knew what they were doing. It wasn't an accident therefore they can face the consequences.
Do you have a delusion to believe you can take somebodies freedom? Or is prison a consequence of someone's actions?

I do not believe in revenge killings.

I don't care if it's the Mafia, the crips, gooch or the state: murder is murder is murder and it's wrong.

By killing Brady or Huntley, you're lowering yourself to their level.

I refuse to judge my standards by those of Brady or Huntley, I'm better than that and under no circumstances do I wish to join them as murderers.

Revenge killing? It is not an eye for an eye. It is ultimately the criminal who decides their fate. They accept the consequences of their actions.
I haven't lowered myself to any level. Huntley was a grown man who killed a child for his gratification. The girls didn't decide they would die he did.
Even if I was the executioner I wouldn't be getting any gratification from it. Huntley would be the one responsible for his own actions.

 

[BingoBango]

The state can't even deliver working IT contracts, so how on earth could it be trusted to execute people?