Restoring the Death Penalty in Britain

[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

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

Come on Glen, tarnishing me with the 'do-gooder' tag is a bit strong old chap.
I didn't get thrown into cells all over the world, fight with coppers or rob banks for 25 years to be labelled that way in my old age.

Your '15 years' comment was not demonstrative, it was wrong. If you base your opinion on the fact that child murderers/rapists get soft sentences then show us an example.

I fully agree that murderers should not be getting out of nick early and i presume your links are examples of this. So let's toughen up the sentencing and fuck off the real 'do gooders' that sit on parole boards and think a nutjob psycho has been re-habilitated because he/she has learnt to read or knit or summat.

Brady wants to die and would love the state to do the job for him. I think it's safe to say that Brady will only be released back into the community in a wooden box.

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

you don't need the death penalty to stop people from re-offending.

 

[glen quagmire]

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

Come on Glen, tarnishing me with the 'do-gooder' tag is a bit strong old chap.
I didn't get thrown into cells all over the world, fight with coppers or rob banks for 25 years to be labelled that way in my old age.

Your '15 years' comment was not demonstrative, it was wrong. If you base your opinion on the fact that child murderers/rapists get soft sentences then show us an example.

I fully agree that murderers should not be getting out of nick early and i presume your links are examples of this. So let's toughen up the sentencing and fuck off the real 'do gooders' that sit on parole boards and think a nutjob psycho has been re-habilitated because he/she has learnt to read or knit or summat.

Brady wants to die and would love the state to do the job for him. I think it's safe to say that Brady will only be released back into the community in a wooden box.

Sorry stoner i wasn't aiming the 'do'gooder' at you at all. It was a general phrasing. Apologies that you felt it was aimed at you.

 

[stonerblue]

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

Come on Glen, tarnishing me with the 'do-gooder' tag is a bit strong old chap.
I didn't get thrown into cells all over the world, fight with coppers or rob banks for 25 years to be labelled that way in my old age.

Your '15 years' comment was not demonstrative, it was wrong. If you base your opinion on the fact that child murderers/rapists get soft sentences then show us an example.

I fully agree that murderers should not be getting out of nick early and i presume your links are examples of this. So let's toughen up the sentencing and fuck off the real 'do gooders' that sit on parole boards and think a nutjob psycho has been re-habilitated because he/she has learnt to read or knit or summat.

Brady wants to die and would love the state to do the job for him. I think it's safe to say that Brady will only be released back into the community in a wooden box.

Sorry stoner i wasn't aiming the 'do'gooder' at you at all. It was a general phrasing. Apologies that you felt it was aimed at you.

Well i was slightly put out but i'd rather be called that than a 'do-badder'.

Cheers Quag and, giggedy

 

[lunebleu]

In these austere times i'm suprised that George Osbourne has'nt argued the economic case for the death penalty as it costs around £38.000 a year to keep a prisoner for 12 months. So for 'lifers' like Hunley,who could live for say for another 40 years, thats a lot of money for the tax payers to fork out. Instead, it could be a New hospital? --State of the art Aircraft Carrier? or an extension to the Royal Ballet.
So as George would say " top the bastards, you know it makes sense"

 

[Skashion]

In these austere times i'm suprised that George Osbourne has'nt argued the economic case for the death penalty as it costs around £38.000 a year to keep a prisoner for 12 months. So for 'lifers' like Hunley,who could live for say for another 40 years, thats a lot of money for the tax payers to fork out. Instead, it could be a New hospital? --State of the art Aircraft Carrier? or an extension to the Royal Ballet.
So as George would say " top the bastards, you know it makes sense"

Doesn't work because it isn't true. America has proven it isn't cheaper. In a western democracy with all the due process that has to be followed, it is more expensive than life imprisonment.

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

In these austere times i'm suprised that George Osbourne has'nt argued the economic case for the death penalty as it costs around £38.000 a year to keep a prisoner for 12 months. So for 'lifers' like Hunley,who could live for say for another 40 years, thats a lot of money for the tax payers to fork out. Instead, it could be a New hospital? --State of the art Aircraft Carrier? or an extension to the Royal Ballet.
So as George would say " top the bastards, you know it makes sense"

Doesn't work because it isn't true. America has proven it isn't cheaper. In a western democracy with all the due process that has to be followed, it is more expensive than life imprisonment.

how about just put them in a North London building tonight? very cheap.

 

[TCIB]

You want a civilised debate about why it's ok to kill people. That's why civilised debate isn't possible; because the act that you are promoting is in itself uncivilised. It's like having a civilised debate about allowing rape.

Explain to me the correlation between allowing rape and justice for murder.

Quote me where i said its "ok to kill people". We are talking about criminal punishment not casually killing people as your post insinuates.
A criminal investigation with forensic analysis and then a judgement passed down after carefull consideration of all the evidence to then be casually reffered to in the way you do suggests a very poor understanding of the law.

Would you call the Romans uncivilized ? or the Greeks ? I suggest to you that the death of a person as a penalty for severe crimes has existed in civilized society for longer than you would like to aknowledge. The two are inextricably linked your logic is flawed. A civilized debate is happening here now between some members who are willing to debate and talk.

Here for example <a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Sharon_Beshenivsky" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_ ... eshenivsky</a>. The gang involved were career criminals some were asylum seekers we could not deport due to human rights.
They demonstrated extreme anti social and criminal tendancies and were responsible for multiple armed robberies with indiscriminate discharging of firearms.
They demonstated many times over a casual abandon for the value of human life.

I hope you enjoy your tax pennies paying for the incarceration of these people who are lost to humanity and have little to no way of being rehabilitated to function in general society.

Would you call the Romans uncivilized ? or the Greeks ?

By any meaningful definition of civilised - without a doubt they were uncivilised.

-- Mon Aug 08, 2011 10:31 am --

You want a civilised debate about why it's ok to kill people. That's why civilised debate isn't possible; because the act that you are promoting is in itself uncivilised. It's like having a civilised debate about allowing rape.

Explain to me the correlation between allowing rape and justice for murder.

Quote me where i said its "ok to kill people". We are talking about criminal punishment not casually killing people as your post insinuates.
A criminal investigation with forensic analysis and then a judgement passed down after carefull consideration of all the evidence to then be casually reffered to in the way you do suggests a very poor understanding of the law.

Would you call the Romans uncivilized ? or the Greeks ? I suggest to you that the death of a person as a penalty for severe crimes has existed in civilized society for longer than you would like to aknowledge. The two are inextricably linked your logic is flawed. A civilized debate is happening here now between some members who are willing to debate and talk.

Here for example <a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Sharon_Beshenivsky" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_ ... eshenivsky</a>. The gang involved were career criminals some were asylum seekers we could not deport due to human rights.
They demonstrated extreme anti social and criminal tendancies and were responsible for multiple armed robberies with indiscriminate discharging of firearms.
They demonstated many times over a casual abandon for the value of human life.

I hope you enjoy your tax pennies paying for the incarceration of these people who are lost to humanity and have little to no way of being rehabilitated to function in general society.

Would you call the Romans uncivilized ? or the Greeks ?

By any meaningful definition of civilised - without a doubt they were uncivilised.

"The word civilization comes from the Latin civilis, meaning civil, related to the Latin civis, meaning citizen, and civitas, meaning city or city-state."

Correct me if im wrong but the Romans and Greeks developed a working society living in a city more than almost any other people. You would still be stuffing food in your mouth with your hands if it wasn't for the romans. Amongst the hundreds of other tools and methods that helped civilized society to flourish.

So your as far from being right as it's possible to be. Just because it doesnt tally with what you percieve as civilization thats not the point is it.

 

[stonerblue]

Explain to me the correlation between allowing rape and justice for murder.

Quote me where i said its "ok to kill people". We are talking about criminal punishment not casually killing people as your post insinuates.
A criminal investigation with forensic analysis and then a judgement passed down after carefull consideration of all the evidence to then be casually reffered to in the way you do suggests a very poor understanding of the law.

Would you call the Romans uncivilized ? or the Greeks ? I suggest to you that the death of a person as a penalty for severe crimes has existed in civilized society for longer than you would like to aknowledge. The two are inextricably linked your logic is flawed. A civilized debate is happening here now between some members who are willing to debate and talk.

Here for example <a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Sharon_Beshenivsky" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_ ... eshenivsky</a>. The gang involved were career criminals some were asylum seekers we could not deport due to human rights.
They demonstrated extreme anti social and criminal tendancies and were responsible for multiple armed robberies with indiscriminate discharging of firearms.
They demonstated many times over a casual abandon for the value of human life.

I hope you enjoy your tax pennies paying for the incarceration of these people who are lost to humanity and have little to no way of being rehabilitated to function in general society.

Would you call the Romans uncivilized ? or the Greeks ?

By any meaningful definition of civilised - without a doubt they were uncivilised.

-- Mon Aug 08, 2011 10:31 am --

Explain to me the correlation between allowing rape and justice for murder.

Quote me where i said its "ok to kill people". We are talking about criminal punishment not casually killing people as your post insinuates.
A criminal investigation with forensic analysis and then a judgement passed down after carefull consideration of all the evidence to then be casually reffered to in the way you do suggests a very poor understanding of the law.

Would you call the Romans uncivilized ? or the Greeks ? I suggest to you that the death of a person as a penalty for severe crimes has existed in civilized society for longer than you would like to aknowledge. The two are inextricably linked your logic is flawed. A civilized debate is happening here now between some members who are willing to debate and talk.

Here for example <a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Sharon_Beshenivsky" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_ ... eshenivsky</a>. The gang involved were career criminals some were asylum seekers we could not deport due to human rights.
They demonstrated extreme anti social and criminal tendancies and were responsible for multiple armed robberies with indiscriminate discharging of firearms.
They demonstated many times over a casual abandon for the value of human life.

I hope you enjoy your tax pennies paying for the incarceration of these people who are lost to humanity and have little to no way of being rehabilitated to function in general society.

Would you call the Romans uncivilized ? or the Greeks ?

By any meaningful definition of civilised - without a doubt they were uncivilised.

"The word civilization comes from the Latin civilis, meaning civil, related to the Latin civis, meaning citizen, and civitas, meaning city or city-state."

Correct me if im wrong but the Romans and Greeks developed a working society living in a city more than almost any other people. You would still be stuffing food in your mouth with your hands if it wasn't for the romans. Amongst the hundreds of other tools and methods that helped civilized society to flourish.

So your as far from being right as it's possible to be. Just because it doesnt tally with what you percieve as civilization thats not the point is it.

I'm gonna go for 'Mayan'

 

[leithblue]

The word civilization comes from the Latin civilis, meaning civil, related to the Latin civis, meaning citizen, and civitas, meaning city or city-state."

Correct me if im wrong but the Romans and Greeks developed a working society living in a city more than almost any other people. You would still be stuffing food in your mouth with your hands if it wasn't for the romans. Amongst the hundreds of other tools and methods that helped civilized society to flourish.

It's as you say, civilized means literally that, an urban population, it carries no real connotations of being superior or "civilized", modern language has adopted the word and not the meaning.

As much I would like to promote Roman society as some kind of model (especially having a Latin degree and Roman History postgrad) you can't use the Roman use of the death penalty as an example of a civilized society (in the modern sense) benefitting from its use. Taking another (this time Greek) term, Romans were undoubtedly barbaric and society was vicious, we get seduced by art, literature and shiny white marble buildings into thinking it was something other than a savage time to live.

I don't believe Rome advanced urbanisation as a concept, if anything it only advanced urban decay.