Posted by canvas on Thursday, 04 January 2007 11:29:13

It's very interesting st91en - but your 'language' is so similar to that of BejaminStrange. I mean the 'style' of your wording and your sentence structure ... The death penalty serves no purpose in a civilised society. It will never be brought back to the UK.

Posted by phantom on Thursday, 04 January 2007 12:01:40

as such I don't have much of a 'moral' problem with the death penalty. Nonetheless I understand it as a practical. There are several cases I can think of which would have resulted in the death penalty only for it later to emerge that the person had been wrongly convicted. Due to their only being imprisoned, this error could be at least partly reversed. Had a death penalty been carried out, we would have been witness to state sponsored murder of an innocent.

As for allowing prisoners out early for good behaviour, I believe the experts tell us it is in fact the only way of maintaining control of our prisons. If the only incentive of prisoners to behave well were to be removed, the staffing level of prisons would need to expand vastly to maintain order. The costs woul dbe extraordinary.
The only practical solution I can foresee is to lock up less people, primarily by means of reducing of imprisonable offences. The fewer people we have in prison the easier the numbers might be able to manage, therefore the more truthful to the sentence could the actual time of incarceration be.

My main gripe is to think that places need to be cleared at speed to allow for fresh incumbents. This is especially gauling when one thinks that rapists or violent assailants are allowed out to make way for a huntsman, someone falling foul of publication laws, or some petty manner. Yet this is the case on a daily basis, fed largely by the desire of the political classes to appear 'tough on crime'.
The more lenient our laws are, the tougher we can afford to be with those who break them. The more offences we create and the stiffer the sentences across the board become the more lenience thereafter has to be shown in the actual incarceration. This seems fairly logical. Yet politicans are not necessarily logical by nature.

So if we want to assure that some people for some crimes remain locked up for good, or for a seriously long time, it is upon us first and foremost to decide what we will no longer lock people up for. Please excuse the language, but this is where a Home Secretary requires 'balls' in confronting those who always demand he appear 'tough'.
It isn't tough to lock up the chap who has defaulted on her tv license or her council tax if it means letting the multiple rapist out early to make room for him.
What we need first and foremost is a moratorium on new offences and a review of existing imprisonable offences with the view of reducing their overall number. Only then can we afford to 'throw the book' at those who are the proverbial menace to society.
Sadly though, I don't foresee this happening....

Posted by Geddes on Thursday, 04 January 2007 16:05:23

Now here is a view I can say is much closer to my own personal opinion. "Thou shalt not kill" - is that not a commandment? I am Christian, and I think that the majority of people in western civilisation are (although it is becoming less and less the case). Anyway - keeping them locked up in a cell, and not allowed out, having the minimum food and drink that the person needs to survive and nothing else - the boredom alone could cause a depression, and that would be the end of that. I don't think that capital punishment is right. Sorry.

Posted by Zoltan on Friday, 05 January 2007 18:46:59

Canvas says "The death penalty serves no purpose in a civilised society. It will never be brought back to the UK."

Unfortunately I don't think we live in a civilised society. Civilised societies dont let child murderers out of jail to reoffend!-too much crime and not enough deterrant at the mo.
Once the crime rate goes down a lot, maybe then we'll have a civilised society.

Also -It will never be brought back to the UK
-a tad dictatorial surely it's up to the electorate-although probably right (I concede since Jack Straw signed our choice away) but with enough public backing, a way round would probably be found.

I also think that in recent years the advances of science have hopefully reduced the number of miscariages of justice that could lead to death. So how about only if there's no doubt at all? I don't want want to see any innocent people put to death.

Remember by letting guilty people roam free after 5 years of a life sentence to go and kill again you've just taken an innocent person's life and given it to the criminal, so who have you saved?

Too much emphasis is given to the criminals rights,criminals should have zero, yes ZERO rights, they don't think about the victims, so why should we think about theirs?


I'm actually going to modify my view now to see the reaction.

Death penalty if convicted and you've been to jail twice (YES for any offence) If you go a third time there's obviously no hope of rehabilitation and you're just a waste of oxygen!

you can't argue with that, if you get sent to jail 3 times you're a career criminal- no respect for the law, no respect for the public, off with your head!


OR

bring back the death penalty in statute (just as a deterrent) and don't use it.

Posted by Zoltan on Friday, 05 January 2007 18:59:38

incidently not trying to offend you, Canvas

Posted by Graham on Friday, 05 January 2007 19:32:03

Zoltan:

> Civilised societies dont let child murderers out of jail to reoffend!

Civilised socities don't use a minority of cases to make the law for the majority, despite the demands of the News of the World and the Daily Mail.

> too much crime and not enough deterrant at the mo. Once the crime rate goes down a lot, maybe then we'll have a civilised society.

The deterrant model of crime prevention has been shown time and again not to work. The old saying has it "might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb", from the times when you *could* be hanged for theft. Did it stop theft though? No.

> Remember by letting guilty people roam free after 5 years of a life sentence to go and kill again you've just taken an innocent person's life and given it to the criminal, so who have you saved?

This is emotive exaggeration. Try looking at the facts instead of the headlines and see how few cases there actually are which could be described in this way.

> Too much emphasis is given to the criminals rights,criminals should have zero, yes ZERO rights, they don't think about the victims, so why should we think about theirs?

Because *we* are supposed to be the "good guys"! You want us to be "civilised" yet in the same post you advocate acting in the most uncivilised way possible! If criminals don't think about people's rights, how can you suggest acting in a "criminal way" by denying rights??

> Death penalty if convicted and you've been to jail twice (YES for any offence) If you go a third time there's obviously no hope of rehabilitation and you're just a waste of oxygen!

I suggest you look at the lack of success of the American "Three Strikes" laws which have resulted in people getting 25 year jail sentences such heinous crimes as stealing a slice of pizza! Yet you want not just 25 year sentences, but DEATH!

If that is the sort of "civilised" society you want to live in, I'll take anarchy any day.

Posted by Zoltan on Friday, 05 January 2007 19:57:45

Right, was only stirring there. =)

Although the 3 strikes rule is an odd one, as much as I agree with it on principle, l it's never going to work.


What i don't understand is why is punishment not a detterent to criminals?

It's a deterrent to me.

One option is to keep increasing the punishment until it works as a deterrent or...???


And why do you get sentenced for 20 years do you get out early for good behaviour?
good behaviour should mean you get out after your sentence rather than if you're bad you get 25, surely it's not just the cash?


Back to the point, I do still agree with the death penalty in principle!

Posted by canvas on Friday, 05 January 2007 21:51:49

Zoltan - not offended, no prob. The death penalty will never be put on the agenda in the UK again - so say what you like. :)

Posted by BenjaminStrange on Friday, 05 January 2007 23:35:56

lol here were go... well lets say this without being complicated.... He who offends in such a way should not be spared to be put in jail. a) because our country can do without them - or the world, b) Our jails are full enough...

Urm, a prediction that the death penalty will not come back... hmm well... of course yes... this person can tell the future. Lol suck pathetic clap trap. We would do better getting rid of offenders for good.

My writing skills can not be so bad after all... as English Lit and Lang A* grade scholar.

Posted by pamixchris on Saturday, 06 January 2007 00:14:26

There is no relationship betwwen use of death penalty and crime - it does not seem to act as a decreased detterent.
longer sentences, however, have proven to do so. The wat to ad to deterency and eradicate all costs is to utiliise prison labour.

Posted by Zoltan on Saturday, 06 January 2007 01:20:20

BenjaminStrange

FYI

On 27th of January 1999 the Home Secretary (Jack Straw) formally signed the 6th protocol of the European Convention of Human Rights in Strasbourg, on behalf of the British government formally abolishing the death penalty in the UK. It had been still theoretically available for treason and piracy up to 1998...

boo hiss

I know, not thinking about the future- that's labour for you

Posted by Zoltan on Saturday, 06 January 2007 01:26:31

pamixchris
"There is no relationship betwwen use of death penalty and crime - it does not seem to act as a decreased detterent.
longer sentences, however, have proven to do so. The wat to ad to deterency and eradicate all costs is to utiliise prison labour."

Good Plan- (Chain gangs, hard labour and railway / road building) -problem is the cost of guarding them, there'll always be some in prison so...

BTW. have you seen Cool Hand Luke?

Posted by pamixchris on Saturday, 06 January 2007 11:42:40

The cost of guarding them is payed for by the convicts.

no ive not seen it but i intend to

Posted by BenjaminStrange on Saturday, 06 January 2007 14:36:00

Oh well yes! let just do it shall we! lets just arrest these offenders and keep putting them in our jails! lets keep filling and filling them more and more... and of course yes! they are valuble people to the world!

utter absurdity... (I think)

Posted by Hasek on Wednesday, 31 January 2007 03:54:58

i have to disagree with the fact that the death penalty has no effect on crime. ive lived in the two top death penalty states in the US Texas and Virginia, texas which has excuted over 400 offenders vs virginia with 11, and texas was much safer IMHO then virginia. houston the largest city in texas has a lower crime rate then dallas why? IMHO its because Houston and harris county (which houston is in) use the death penalty more often then anywhere else in texas.