No. The last executions in Ãsland were made on janúar 12. 1830 and were Agnes Magnúsðóttir and Friðrik Sigurðsson for killing Nathan Ketilsson and Pétur Jónsson. Danmörk executed a Ãslendingur in 1834 but I can not find his name. That was the last person.
"Nathan", "Nathan" - what sort of name is that for an Icelander? Next thing you'll be telling us that Dwayne Dwaynusson and Stacey Chavdottir are standing for Prime Minister....
While researching my family tree, I discovered that a relative of mine was hanged along with another man for passing a forged 10/0d note. A third man convicted of the same offence had some money and was able to pay for deportation to Australia. Our perception of what should be an offence worthy of the death penalty has changed for the better over the years, until we have arrived at the current state where most countries do not have it at all.
I think the death penalty should be there as a deterrent. There are circumstances when it should be used such as the murder of a police officer as in the case of Sharon Beshenivsky. Also for treason. I also agree with the idea of the right to die with dignity. I shall leave others to argue about the details, safeguards, how's and when's... but as insofaras the principles are concerned, that is where I stand.
Most definitions of euthanasia make no reference to who is making the decision, but it is generally understood to mean "mercy killing", whilst being ambiguous about whether or not the person being killed has explicitly asked for it. Capacity to make the decision has always got to be in there as far as I'm concerned. I don't know what life has in store for me, or how I would respond to an agonising condition in later life. What I am certain about is that there will never come a time when I want someone else to take the decision for me.
Then that could be incorporated into the law if it were passed. You cant simply say that anyone who kills another out of mercy is innocent, there would be strict controls. With regards to a person being on life support, the doctors have to apply to the court to me sure that what they are doing is not illegal. The general rule is that if a person is brain dead then they are dead. There is nothing that can be done for them so switching off the machine is not killing. If you were to bring in a law you would be sure to make it very difficult to do this, you would not simply have to prove they were ill, you would have to prove that it was their decision, that they were of full mental capacity when making that decision and were not forced into it.
there was a good discussion on the JVS show on 3CR the other day. It was interesting to hear everyones opinions.
The example of the man referred to above is a good reason for there not being capital punishment but as an alternative, how about reducing the prison population by making the most serious offenders - multiple murderers, *****philes, etc doing a form of National Service in places like Afghanistan? I'm not necessarily saying that they have to fight, but it might just give them a realisation of how serious the crimes that they've committed are having to live in those harsh conditions. I know full well the Forces would resist it, just as they don't want the return of full National Service. Also, one thing that's never referred to when overcrowded prisons are mentioned, is what effect is it having on prison warders?
I quite like that idea too Barry. Send any long term criminals overseas to serve their punishment. If a man gets convicted of rape and sentenced to serve 10yrs make him serve at least half of that in the military, make him realise what hard work it is. If he is lucky enough to make it back alive then maybe he will realise his errors.
How is it pronounced in Iceland ak? Most of the world simply cannot (or will not) pronounce the diphthong that is "th", simply pronouncing it as "t". So is pronounced it "Natan" or "Nathan"?
To answer the original question Nay nay and nay again. I have worked for over 25 years with lifers both in the UK and abroad - including some on death row. What sets this country and Europe above the likes of China, America, Iran and Indonesia (to name a few) is we are civilised enough to recognise that an eye for an eye just doesn't work. There is absolutely no evidence at all the capital punishment prevents others committing capital offences - in fact there is a lot of evidence to suggest the contrary especially in rape cases. Moreover it is not the case that forensic science is well enough advanced to ensure people aren't wrongly convicted - there are daily examples even here where forensics are wrong. The vast majority of the people I have met who have committed capital offences have done so by mistake - people have arguments everyday which get out of hand and in a few instances these end up with murder. But it could happen to anyone. Also capital punishment is used in many countries as a political tool - and that includes the USA. And yes it could happen here - indeed up until the 2nd world war at least it did and to move back towards capital punishment also means a movement back to political murder as well. Our politicians are as capable as anyone of convincing people that state murder is okay. As far as life meaning life - well despite what the Daily Mail would have you believe - it does. Lifers are subjected to control even when they are released - just ask Leslie Granthem - a murderer by the way. What perhaps this country should concentrate more on is offering the help and support that victims need - this is where we fall down. there you have it - the bleeding heart liberal view (lower case l please - I'm not a cleggtory) - a label i am very proud to own!
