Bring Back Hanging!
-
dirt-box — 17 years ago(January 13, 2009 09:05 PM)
Hanging if done correctly is a very quick and humane form of execution, it would save tax payers money on keeping the likes of Ian Huntley and Steve Wright jailed for the rest of their lives.
So bring it on.
WTF did you expect to find here? -
johncsw — 17 years ago(January 22, 2009 04:43 AM)
Hmm, maybe if this story took place today perhaps your sentance would read "it would save tax payers money on keeping the likes of Timothy Evan and Ian Huntley jailed for the rest of their lives."
The question is do you want to get revenge on such people or rehabilitate them, Thomas More compared such an ideal to a teacher who was more interested in caning a pupil for an incorrect answer than teaching them the correct answer. Although, I think its also worth noting that he was in prison awaiting execution when he wrote this, but then his offence was not granting Henry VIII a divorce, which I think was a bit of an over reaction. -
dirt-box — 17 years ago(January 22, 2009 12:12 PM)
The likes of Ian Huntley are never going to be rehabilitated, nor released. Surely hanging would spare them the lifetime in jail as well as the costs of inprisoning such people.
Timothy Evans and Derek Bently were miscarraiges of justice, not helped by the swift way executions took place in the past, both were hanged within a month of being found guilty.
One would expect that if this took place today there would be laws in place to ensure DNA evidence must be used in capital trials, as well as exhaustive appeals as in the US with a death row where prisoners wait years to be executed.
WTF did you expect to find here? -
johncsw — 17 years ago(January 23, 2009 07:08 AM)
I see where you're coming from but your arguement hinges on the dea that some people will never be rehabilitated. Which is an idea that I have never been able to get on board with. I don't know why people like Ian Huntley, Harold Shipman etc do what they do, I don't think any body does. I doubt that even they themselves understand why they do it. Based on that how can we account for the fact that it is a permanent condition and that there is nothing that can be done for them.
-
jurassicmarc — 17 years ago(January 28, 2009 05:49 PM)
johncsw, what a great arguement Ive never looked at it like that before. My main problem with the death penalty is that it is hypocritcal and usually comes from people/courts/states who claim to be religeous 'thou shal not kill' etc.
Im not sure how much rehabilitation is effective but prison I think is much better idea than putting people to death who are later found not guilty. The American system of people being kept on Death row for years before finally executing seem to be more cruel than just sentance and quick execution.
"Its just a ride" -
johncsw — 17 years ago(February 05, 2009 11:38 AM)
Thats true; leaving people on death row for years would just give them false hope. That is quite inhumane in itself.
As for the whole rehabilitation thing. It is one of things that is hard to deal with. On one hand you can put them in a normal prison and they will be tortured by the other inmates, which is again so inhumane.
The other option is that you can put them together in the same wing where they can be protected, but then when you put these people together they can look at each other and think "Wow, I'm not so much of a freakshow after all, look at these guys, its normal to be like this". Which is rather counter productive.
So what do you do? -
cythna — 16 years ago(December 15, 2009 01:15 AM)
"I don't know why people like Ian Huntley, Harold Shipman etc do what they do, I don't think any body does". However we do know partly what causes it: 100% of sexual psychopaths are beaten abd treated cruely as children. Obviously not all damaged children grow up to become seriel killers, so there are other things at work, or maybe as Alice Miller suggests, a 'good' angel, someone who can see what is happening and help the child to rationalise it, makes a difference.
But you're right, it can't be cured, which is why it is not considered an illness, but a personality disorder. -
djeinbrum — 16 years ago(August 27, 2009 05:37 PM)
What utter rot! Tim Evans's daughter Geraldine was murdered by John Christie. Derek Bentley did not commit any capital offense, but was hanged purely as a scapegoat since Christopher Craig was too young to be hanged. Both have received posthumous pardons.
-
screenman — 17 years ago(February 15, 2009 05:16 AM)
I notice that most of you seem to be exclusively concerned with the rights and the needs of the culprit. Don't forget, a murderer is someone who deliberately takes another person's life. He/she doesn't stop to consider the victim or the victim's family for a second. Beyond the need to be sure of their guilt and therefor avoid a miscarriage of justice by executing the wrong person, why should the culprit be considered at all?
Someone makes a reference to Sir Thomas More, and his apparent disavowel of the death penalty whilst at the same time he was put to death for placing his loyalty to the Roman Catholic church ahead of his loyalty to the king. But I wonder which way Sir Thomas would have turned when the same Catholic Church began the inquisition, torturing and killing people for no greater crime than simply disagreeing with its diktat. -
johncsw — 17 years ago(February 15, 2009 08:45 AM)
I was the one who quoted Thomas More, I just thought I it was a cool quote that illustrates, in light manner, that the death sentance is not good.
I agree with you that murder is not good. When a person deliberately takes somebodies life the affects are devastating, beyond words. I have been fortunate enough not to be the victim of any crime in any entity. So you may argue "come back to me if your child is murdered, and see if you feel the same way."
I cannot imagine how I would feel if my child was murdered, in the same way cannot I imagine how I would feel if my child murdered someone elses child. -
johncsw — 17 years ago(March 04, 2009 11:59 PM)
Our technology has certainly advanced but I do not think we can place so much confidence in it as to determine the life or death of anybody, regardless of what they have done. And as for corruption I don't think that is something that we can ever dismiss unfortuantely.
I used to know a guy who was racist against the germans, and thought they were some sort of lower beings (as racists tend to do). His reason for his racism was the Nazi thing. Aside from that just being completely stupid, I could never understand how he could justify being racist against a country "because they are racists", which was kind of his arguement.
(Just to clear the air, I'm not calling anyone a nazi on this board)
But how can we profess murder to be wrong and then encourage it by enforcing the death penalty.
As for my "naive" opinions, I am perhaps more on sympathy with this sort of thing than you suppose. And from my experiences, people either learn to forgive or they sink into bitterness, ruin their own lives in some cases the lives of others. Forgiveness is better.
So I return to my original question; are we for public revenge or rehabilitation? -
screenman — 17 years ago(March 06, 2009 06:16 AM)
I don't think you're being naive, johncsw. But I answer your points as follows:
Firstly, it's perfectly true that there's no such thing as a foolproof system. But every day we put our trust in flawed systems even though they may cost us our lives. For example; nobody who takes to the skies in aeroplanes expects to die in a crash. But every year quite a few people do - far more than would likely be executed in the whole western world. By the same token; not many people get into the seats of their motorcars, turn on the ignition, and sayI may not be coming home today'. Yet in Britain alone, every year, over 3000 end their journeys in the mortuary. Most don't bat an eyelid at these statistics. And yet mention judicial execution and they become extremely motivated. It's very much one of perception and (the illusion) of control. If as many died in passenger-jet crashes as died on the roads, nobody would fly. Yet most people secretly (and erroneously) think that roads are safer. Secondly, killing is not MURDER. MURDER is defined by law. In the absence of law there is no murder, nor any other crime for that matter. It is law that defines criminality. If the law defines murder as the premeditated and unjustified killing of a human being, then that is what murder is. It is nothing else, and nothing else is murder. It is down to the finer points of law to evaluatepremeditation' and/orjustification', and therefore guilt or innocence. Hence a trial. If the law does not define execution as murder, then it is not. You may call it murder. In your conscience you may sincerely believe it to be murder. But your definition and your conscience are not the law. Personally, I do not think the present adversarial criminal justice system is suited to the trial of murder suspects. It is weighted towards finding a culprit (any culprit)rather than finding the truth. Things could be substantially improved. Neither do I think that the police and others face severe enough penalties when they pervert the course of justice. If they knew that they might also hang for perverting a capital case, they would be less inclined to do so. But they are under pressure to get results.
It is a profound hypocricsy to arm the police and license them to assassinate SUSPECTS, and yet deny the courts the sanction of capital punishment to execute CONVICTS. The latter at least have enjoyed a full (if flawed) hearing. Police suspects are given little, if any chance.Ah', people say,the police need to defend themselves'. But I say `doesn't society as a whole have the same right?' If judicial hanging meets your definition of murder, surely the police shooting of an innocent or unarmed suspect must also qualify?
I, too, very much subscribe to a belief in rehabilitation. And I think a great deal more could be done for those who commit lesser crimes. Their rehabilitation could go hand-in-hand with making restitution to their victims. But the victim of murder is beyond restitution. And for those who have knowingly, deliberately and wilfully taken their life, I feel neither shame nor guilt in demanding they forfeit their own. That, to me, is not revenge, neither is it retribution or even punishment. It is justice.
All I ask is that the verdict is more reliable than aeroplanes. After that I'd much sooner take my chances in the bright lights of open court than the back-streets at night. -
tom-1536 — 17 years ago(March 07, 2009 07:41 AM)
It seems to me that none of the previous posters have been the victim of a violent predator. Unfortunately, such was not the case with my own daughter, sexually assaulted by a pedophile. It was not even especially violent assault, as those things go. We were (and still are) thankful for that. However, the sweet and innocent sixteen year old that was the light of our lives has never been the same. She's battled depression and anxiety ever since. She never induced this animal into his assault; in fact he was my best friend and she'd known him all of her life. He fooled both of us that he was a good, normal fellow fooled us for years and years, keeping his deviant nature well hidden.
I was talked out of executing him myself, but I wish now that I had. There were those who felt he could be rehabilitated, and he did appear to be so rehabilitated that is. He served most of his five year sentence under the care of doctors, undergoing psychological therapy several times a week. Is this what you all mean when you speak of rehabilitation?
Less than two weeks after his "rehabilitation" was over and he was released, he took the life of a very young little girl after a brutal sexual assault.
Now tell me that this creature should not have been executed after he'd assaulted my daughter. Let me hear your reasoning. Impress me with your arguments. Show me your compassion. Just make certain your compassion is properly placed.
Personally, I cannot think of a punishment cruel and unusual enough! If it was up to me, I'd have him hanged, drawn, and quartered. With no hesitation whatever.
TjB -
screenman — 17 years ago(March 08, 2009 01:05 PM)
Yours is an absolutely diabolical story. Frankly, it's what I'd call a worst-case scenario. And it's precisely the kind of crime that knocks the more liberal apologists and excuseniks into a cocked hat. Any normal human-being would flay this fiend alive if they were in your shoes, no matter what judgemental platitudes they might utter under different circumstances.
I'm reminded of Lord Longford et al, clamouring for the release of Myra Hindley, claiming that she was just misunderstood, she was prey to the evil influence of Ian Brady, she was a reformed character, and that she had made a full confession and contrition etc etc. Eventually, when it looked like she might be in line for parole, Brady let slip that there were 2 other murders in which she had been complicit, and about which up to that point she had kept schtum.
I believe Longford had a nervous breakdown. And it served him right.
Personally, I would like to see a new offence of `gross violence', in which it would not affect the outcome of trial whether the victim lived or died. If the attack was deemed to have been so wicked and violent as to be incomprehensible to civilised society, it should still incur the death penalty. That would take in all of these people who irreperably harm kids, or old people, or even the other species for that matter.
My complete sympathies are with you and your kid, for what they are worth. -
johncsw — 17 years ago(March 13, 2009 12:56 AM)
First of all, I just want to express my sympathies to you.
Yes I agree that what happened was dispicable. And you're right; I don't even have any children, so I cannot even begin to imagine something like this. However as I have mentioned I am not totally without experience in this area. I would rather not give any details over the internet but I will try to explain where my point of view comes from.
The situation that I was in was perculiar in that I saw both the reaction of the family of the victim. And the reaction of the family of the criminal. As for as you say placing compassion in the right place, is there anything wrong with placing it on both sides?
To quote Gandhi "An eye for an eye, only ends up making the whole world blind"
As for the rehab issue as I said before I don't think we are in a position to say that it is impossible to say that such people cannot be reformed as we know so little about the nature of these illnesses. I think there should be more research into this area.