As some members are of the opinion that the board is going stale i thought i would try and spice things up with this. I say Yea. There are some crimes for which a spell inside a luxury prison cannot atone. When a person takes the life of another, when a man rapes a woman and more. Since capital punishment was banned and the last executions were carried out there have been vast improvements in the field of forensic science which means that any likely-hood of a wrongful execution has been reduced to virtually none. However, i would not say that they should be killed every time, i say that they become human guinea pigs and we stop animal testing and use them instead. After all, the drugs they are testing are meant for use on humans, so what is gained by causing animals suffering??
No, make life mean life and stop the "luxuries" in jail. Make them spend the rest of their days repenting as their victims families and friends will spend the rest of their days mourning.
One of the few signs we are becoming a more civilised society is that we stopped experimenting on humans some time ago. Everything to do with human execution is abhorrent and to formally give anyone the responsibility of carrying it out is to return to the Dark Ages. Awful crimes are awful crimes but they do not mean we, as members of the state, have to descend to the same level.
That may be true, but the re-offending rates are rising and are the highest they have been, possibly ever. So is this not proof that prison does not work? Surely it is also less civilised and far crueler to mistreat a creature which has done nothing wrong and cannot defend itself? Take Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS) for instance, they breed animals in poor conditions and bread them so that they can then subject them to horrific tests with drugs they know dont work. How is this civilised?? But we cannot afford to do that as a nation. The prisons are full as it is and the costs are astronomical. All this is with what some would call lenient sentences. So how the hell are we going to fund 50+ year sentences??
There are some people I think perhaps they do not deserve to live.... but very few indeed and I am not sure I could decide.... but think of fred west, sutcliffe, many nazis and despots etc.... The disproportionate cost of prisons as against the elderly for example does sharpen my thinking for more severe and shorter sentences... however all the evidence suggests that the short sharp shock treatments do not reduce re-offending...... on the other hand why should prison be pleasant....
No to Capital Punishment - regardless of the "advances in forensic science" it is not foolproof and there will still be miscarriages of justice. No to "human guinea pigs" - abhorrent for any civilised society - anyone advocating this should read what the Nazis did in the name of "Aryan science" in the Second World War' Yes to longer sentences for murder - 30 years minimum - and that should mean 30 years absolute - preferably to keep a murderer in gaol until they are 60. Yes to a far more spartan regime in prison for murderers - solitary confinement, adequate rations only, no "modern luxuries", no visits, no so-called "human rights" like votes Yes to building more prisons for murderers and violent offenders - reduce costs by making them more basic. Yes to more appropriate sentences for lesser offences - more working in and for the community - but strictly controlled This may seem extreme to some but it would be a far more preferable direction than state killing.........
It's irresponsible not to consider economics in these arguments. I'm all for giving people second chances, helping them get back into society..... but ultimately if they are re-offenders or are just being drains on society, monetarily, socially etc... then I lose sympathy very quickly. Humans rights is important, but it's equally important that we do not take it too far.... in my opinion it has gone too far on many occasions. But yes, back to economics..... with a growing population, resources running out etc.... there's no room for over-sentiment. A human's life cannot afford to be too much more than what it's worth. My opinion is.... if someone re-offends serious crimes (I say that to give people a second chance, plus it reduces likelihood or injustice) and is going to be a drain for their whole life, then I would start to think about capital punishment. I'm sure there are less severe ways to cut costs right now though... like people said, less luxuries in prison would be a start. Another way of thinking about it is...... this money can go on serious criminals, or it could be put to better use on improving or saving lives.
Or the money we are currently still spending on our armed forces (despite the latest round of reductions) could be better allocated. I for one would relish it being spent on a series of spartan prisons for violent offenders and murderers. Our politicians should not continue to fool themselves into thinking that we are still a world power. Let others take on the burden that we have carried for so long and only recently shifted to the USA. Or is this another thread, sorry..........
I don't believe in capital punishment, and am not in favour of either euthanasia (a very slippery slope in my opinion) or a liberal attitude to suicide. But I do think that the country should have a serious debate on whether or not Britain should consider a highly restricted "right" to die (poor word, can't think of a better one). For instance, criminals who have been incarcerated for a very long time (so that they cannot be accused of getting off lightly) and have no realistic hope of release. Or for those whose medical conditions are particularly severe, who can demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt the capacity to make a rational decision, and that they have an unbearable quality of life which will not improve.
You dont have to be sorry mate. Say what you feel, im not going to stop you, and nor will anyone else
I agree on that too, but I wouldn't just change the armed forces, or prisons.... it's more realistic to wind down the costs over the board.
Did anybody see the programme on C4 last night called "Lifers"? It was filmed at Gartree HMP in Leicester which has more Lifers than any other prison in the UK. It covered a number of inmates who has all committed murder and were given life sentences will quite a range of minimum tariffs - ranging from 12 years to 32 years. It was a fascinating programme and showed things that I was really not aware of. There are phones readily available, inmates had TV's, games machines in there own private rooms. One even had a pair of Budgies in a cage in his room! But was most interesting were the convicts themselves. They ranged from the obvious candidates i.e. drug user kills drug dealer in row over drugs (no surprise there), some very disturbed people who just killed as if it an everyday thing. But the most interesting was this meak, mild mannered middle aged guy who was in for killing his wife. He was happily married and worked for the MOD, but his wife wanted more and took on a series of affairs. To which he ignored until she wanted to bring one home to live with them, during a blazing row he strangled her - all he remembers are his hands around her neck. He called the Police and Ambulance and pleaded guilty. They had 2 daughters who both come and visit him in Gartree regularly. So would he be a candidate for the death penalty? Is he a better person than the drug user after 20 years banged up? That is my issue with the death sentence, where are the lines drawn and who draws them?
Didnt see it..... but yes raises very important issues... ads that man would enver commit any other crime for the rest of his life..... and you could argue on one level it was a human response to an intolerable situation..... after all we are animal in part of our nature....... and an alpha male monkey will kill any males that threaten it and... all the offspring of other males.... . Very interesting questions raised....
Why should we not allow euthanasia?? It literally means "good death". We are so bound by the ECHR that we give criminals better quality of life than pensioners who have worked for 60yrs and never asked for anything, but we are supposed to watch a person suffer a horrific, painful death?? What about article 3?? Surely forcing someone to die slowly, painfully, and lose all control over their body is one of the most degrading things we can do to a person? Most of us have seen what a debilitating illness can do to a person and im sure that all of us would do all we could to help them and stop their suffering. Why should a loved one be forced to stand by and watch their husband, wife, brother, sister, mum, dad suffer?? We would put an animal down if they were terminally ill, or were suffering, yet we say that a humans life is more sacred. The whole situation is mixed up in my opinion. Also, its not just about the physical suffering of the patient, its also the mental suffering this causes the family members.
Article 3 – Prohibition of torture No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Very subjective this article. What is "inhuman treatment" to some is "just punishment" to others. I would not consider solitary confinement for murdering drug-dealers "inhuman". I would not consider withholding the right to vote from prisoners "degrading".
Yep, for serious crimes - murder, rape, armed robbery, supporting Luton. It would reduce prison numbers too and set an example to those who's mind it might cross. If not then at least village stocks should be brought back.
Its a simple answer there, the druggie might get the death penalty, but the husband certainly might not. He has the choice to plead loss of self control based on Section 55 (6)(a) Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
The right to vote being withheld is not referring to section 3, it is more relating to Article 3 of Protocol 1 The Strasbourg court ruled in May that the current UK stance on not allowing prisoners to vote is incompatible with the Protocol.
