mojobanana Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 I voted no and I'm with QB, two wrongs do not make a right. Prison is far too easy for those who are institutionalised into it - so-called career criminals. For normal, law-abiding folk the prospect of prison is horrifying, but for others it's the only thing they know. I'd rather see Levi Bellfield in a pitch black box he can't stand up in, sit down in, or lie down in for 23.5 hours a day. Death is the easy way out. If you take a life then you lose the right to determine how to live yours. Simples. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ratser Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 I voted no and I'm with QB, two wrongs do not make a right. Who said it was wrong ?You also have to think of the cost of keeping some of these subhumans alive.With money that the decent people in society are paying.I have seen, very close hand, the devastation that one of these people have caused, and the long lasting effects.Thankfully he decided to take his own life, the coward that he was. However it turned out for the best as he will never be released to have possibly carried out something similar. And I don't feel guilty for being glad that person is dead.I do feel sorry for the train driver though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Throttled Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 No, because the legal system makes mistakes and to hang someone in error is abhorant.People keep on calling to bring hanging back as they see prison and other sentences as an insufficient deterrent. We need to sort out the prison system and the likes of community sentences and make them tougher. The amount of unpaid fines is ridiculous. We would save a fortune if fines could be taken direct from benefits and wages and make such unavoidable. That would free up prison places for more serious and career criminals to spend longer in prison.The US system of three strikes and you are out is too draconian. I would introduce 30 strikes and you are out, which sounds too lenient, but you would be amazed at how many people there are with 30 plus convictions. Only a few criminals commit the majority of crime and this would remove them from society. (By out I mean life in prison) This would have a much impact than you would imagine as you would quickly remove the real menaces from our streets.I would introduce a system of three strikes and you are out for legal aid. That way everyone has access to free legal help, except those who go on and commit further crimes. This would give middle income people access to free legal aid for the first time. I would introduce punishments that fit the crime better. For example, I would introduce lifetime fines, so you can be fined £100 a year, every year for the rest of your life as a reminder of the life changing impact you had on the victim. And weekend prison sentences for those in work who would otherwise lose their job (so affecting the rest of the family). And for vandals a punishment of having their property damaged in front of them. Stuff like that. I would introduce weekend courts so people are not waiting for up to three days (four on public holidays) before they go to court.All police officers would wear video cameras, so more people would get to see how they behave when they are drunk as alcohol accounts for a huge amount of violent and distrubance crime.When you turn 18 you have to apply for a licence to drink. You pay the council £20 for one and you have to have it on you when you are drinking or in possesion of or are buying drink. If you are caught committing crime when drunk the police can confiscate the licence off you and you have to apply to get it back, which is an expensive day in court trying to show how you will behave. Found in possession of drink, in licened premises or under the influence without a licence and you will be arrested.I would amend the Human Rights Act and make it the Human Rights and Duties Act, so that it is clear to people that they have a duty to respect others and their property etc. Human rights on their own allow people to claim all sorts of nonsence as a supposed right. Once I had done all of that I would retire, a national hero to all except criminals, but who cares about them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nogin Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 nope there is always the risk the person may be innocent... so no no no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin the Bear Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z28/Colin_the_bear/hang.gif Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techno Posted August 9, 2011 Author Share Posted August 9, 2011 Am sorry 30 srikes and your out come on, we would allow people to commit so many crimes, if you commit one serious crime it should be your out, life means life if it doesnt dont f**king call it that!Am with ratser about 2 wrongs dont make a right, I belive it wouldnt be wrong!As a tax payer I detest my taxes being used to house these people and then you get levi bellfield sueing the prisons cos he was attacked this is no laughing matter yet it is a joke...on us!As for deportation, some people prefered to hang when given the option lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 Always a contentious subject!!Hmm, I voted yes, bring it back. But I can, cos this is just an internet forum and the whim took me that way ... On reflection, if my opinion were to really make a difference... Who am I to a put a value on life? Can I seriously say, in the world I live in, that any life is for taking?I agree, there are plenty I would happily pull the lever/trigger/press the button etc ..But ultimately, I value all life. At somepoint though, that life becomes worthless when they do something to give up that right to life ...The 'I don't bloody know' option was missing Techno .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin the Bear Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 We don't take a life, we only shorten it. Bringing forward the inevitable Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 Like ya perspective Colin! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Susieque Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 I've voted no, for the reason that someone might be wrongly convicted.Like others have said though, punishment for an offence should be worthwhile - hopefully to deter would-be and repeat offenders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fozzie Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 Being wrongly convicted of a crime equal to the death sentence will see at least 15 years of their life down in the drain in prison. Why is there no care if they are wrongly convicted?Id just have it for special cases really, cases where it was 100% solid as well would be a requisite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techno Posted August 10, 2011 Author Share Posted August 10, 2011 If you look back at the link in the op it is to be aimed at child killers, am wondering if any in recent times were actually found to be wrongly convicted? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nman1 Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 Well heres your answer, some PC twat has made a report and crims are spending time in their cells. Arrrhhhh, poor little shites. Lets make it better than a cheap old bedsit and we`ll have more in prison.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14470017 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mealexme Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 before the riots i would have said no but seeing what some people in this country are still capable of (burning houses with people inside, shooting someone in a car, and other brutal things) i am beginning to think maybe it would be better off if some of them were dead and then there are other things like multiple murders. i think the point that you give up someone's life intentionally, you give up your own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rollingskies Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 Execution isn't vengence anymore than wanting someone to go to prison is vengence. Stupid argument. I believe that the human rights arcticle which says everyone has the right to live is correct. So if someone takes away my life, which cannot be restored ever again than they have forfeited their life. For me if 1000 murders were committed a year I would expect less than 100 to get the death penalty. The evidence would have to be 100%. There would have to be no question whatsoever. So yes that might mean Ian Huntly would get life and not the death penalty (he had a majority verdict). Absolute conclusive proof would be clear video, caught holding the knife/gun on scene. DNA on a scrap of paper would not be good enough.Execution is not vengence, revenge or barbaric. Murder is the calculated wicked unjust barbaric taking away of someone's life, execution is protecting society and giving justice and is no more revenge than life in jail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Throttled Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 Thirty strikes and you are out is designed to take out the career criminals first and get them off the streets as quickly as possible. That in itself would make a huge difference to crime rates. As time goes by it could be lowered.I see the first conviction for the riots has been handed out - ONE DAY IN PRISON to a student who having spent the night in a cell was released immediately. At least others are being referred to higher courts, but think about the message one day in prison sends out. Pathetic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redline Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 in russia, some prisons are much worse than death. i dont think the state should have the power to kill its 'subject' or citzens personally, they cant even fix potholes in road properly let alone execute people Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bogof Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 I'd have no problems with someone being hanged if it was proved beyond doubt they were guilty, but think that even if it was reinstated the chances of it actually being implemented would be tiny due to our human rights laws. The Birmingham Six were found guilty beyond doubt.The Guildford Four were found guilty beyond doubt.George Davis was found guilty beyond doubt.And Michael Stone. Was it him? Or was it Levi Bellfield?Apart from the risk of killing an innocent person, I find the whole death penalty thing quite the most barbaric and inhumane thing that man could ever do to man.I did, and always will, vote NO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyberwolf Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 I'd have no problems with someone being hanged if it was proved beyond doubt they were guilty, but think that even if it was reinstated the chances of it actually being implemented would be tiny due to our human rights laws. The Birmingham Six were found guilty beyond doubt.The Guildford Four were found guilty beyond doubt.George Davis was found guilty beyond doubt.And Michael Stone. Was it him? Or was it Levi Bellfield?Apart from the risk of killing an innocent person, I find the whole death penalty thing quite the most barbaric and inhumane thing that man could ever do to man.I did, and always will, vote NO. and thats why i say big fat no Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techno Posted August 12, 2011 Author Share Posted August 12, 2011 I'd have no problems with someone being hanged if it was proved beyond doubt they were guilty, but think that even if it was reinstated the chances of it actually being implemented would be tiny due to our human rights laws. The Birmingham Six were found guilty beyond doubt.The Guildford Four were found guilty beyond doubt.George Davis was found guilty beyond doubt.And Michael Stone. Was it him? Or was it Levi Bellfield?Apart from the risk of killing an innocent person, I find the whole death penalty thing quite the most barbaric and inhumane thing that man could ever do to man.I did, and always will, vote NO. I would say murdering a child is the most barbaric and inhumane even more so if their your own, but thats just me!I supoose for me to see it as inhumane id have to regard them as human, I dont!And thats why I would always vote yes!Especially after trials like thishttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-14472923Its a disgrace these people draw another breath!Like religion and most political topics it will always be split as there probably is too great an argument for both sides, no matter how much talking we all know at this moment it has no chance of being reinstated in this country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fozzie Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 Top notch...Saying taking the life of another man is inhumane is touchy... After all our boys in the middle east have killed many men and in many cases I bet they were less deserving of some of the people who commit these crimes. So when is it ok to take life? They are hailed as heroes after all Can I just ask, if a child who was kidnapped and murdered. And the killer showed no regret and had enjoyed it. Doesnt that show there are degrees of being inhumane? To kill them quickly as punishment for a disgusting crime doesnt weigh up with what they did. So if they did it knowing the penalty was death then i can almost see it as compassionate to kill them quickly rather than put them through the terror they believed was ok to impose...As said it will always have 2 sides and I see both quite clearly, but on balance to kill a man is wrong, but to kill a criminal guilty of an inhuman act is not wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bogof Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 So when is it ok to take life? Try "never". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparkeh9 Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 So when is it ok to take life? Try "never". Best stop eating meat then, and no putting animals down, no matter how compassionate the reason Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techno Posted August 12, 2011 Author Share Posted August 12, 2011 So when is it ok to take life? Try "never". What not even if its your life or theres and as in self defence, hmmm am thinking never is too simplistic an answer! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Throttled Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 Right to life, with exceptions, from the Human Rights Act 1998."Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:(a)in defence of any person from unlawful violence;(b)in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;©in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.