Some really good comments on this thread and ideas by posters. If the prison officers let him get a hiding by turning the other cheek, then I say fair play to them
In that instance you imply the Conservative is more attuned to the "real World" than the Liberal. Fair point perhaps in this case. However, it tends to be the other way around in most other issues, particularly when it comes to equal opportunities, religion and such. I couldn't let you away with that little dig Herr Ubes
For a change I have to aggree with imaz, but, any money he gets should be given to the family mebers of his victums. He shouild gain no benift. A law making this fact may stop these animals suing in the future.
You used a big "C", Travis, I purposely didn't. The expression can only apply to one's sense of criminal justice, hence the reference to mugging.
I use to have a mate who was a Prison Officer in Scotland. He said the easiest part of the job was looking after the nonces 'cos they knew that one word or step out of line, the officers back would be turned and the scum would be on the end of a right pasting.
That was a good thread. I was conflicted on this then and still am. Head says no and the guts say something else. Don't see the deterrent argument though, can't think of anywhere it has worked, particularly for the sort of killers we are talking about who act under some kind of compulsion - these aren't crimes of passion, contract killings or the like. We're talking vengeance pure and simple, might as well admit it.
Had this debate a number of times with my other half & for me people like him should have no rights (even to life) & don't believe they should have a cushy number in prison. I'd have to qualms about pulling the trigger either & wouldn't lose a seconds sleep & no way do I think this takes the law abiding, fair members of society down to their level.
The deterrent argument holds no water, and the cost argument is self-serving. I'm happy that we pay for a few murderers to be kept in jail for the rest of their lives if it means that innocent people don't get hung.
Cost of compensation £4750, cost of legal aid lawyer for action probably £25,000, cost of police defence lawyers (say) £30,000 and the counsel probably another £30,000. All figures extremely conservative estimates. Overall at least £90k odd wasted. I wonder how that compares with the cost of few courses of chemo, or keeping two nurses employed for a year. I'm all for a fair and caring society, but sadly, I think ours is irreparably broken.
Innocent people will always die as a result of the death penalty, however few. If you're in support of it- then you're saying sometimes killing innocent people is okay, i.e. sometimes murder is okay. Death is an irreparably final punishment, and I don't feel mankind will ever be in a position to equitably dole out such punishments.
The 'deterrent argument holds no water' holds no water. I agree with Stan's comment that killers acting out of some sort of compulsion are unlikely to be deterred, but for pre-meditated murders and the like I can see a death penalty causing some to think twice. It's easy to dismiss the deterrent argument simply because it would be impossible to calculate just how many lives are saved in this way, nor could you necessarily deduce anything particularly from crime statistics both pre- and post a restoration of capital punishment. One could point to 'joint enterprise' as evidence of a deterrent effect, as it is a fact that back in the day some criminals would search each other for weapons prior to a 'job' for fear of themselves hanging should an accomplice commit murder during a robbery etc. Stan is honest in admitting that he is conflicted and I can sympathise with his head vs guts dilemma. Nobody would wish to see another innocent person put to death in error by the state, although this seems to continue with little comment every time the police arm themselves and get twitchy. Communities may take to the streets in protest, (unfortunately often inciting rioting and looting or whatever too) but their beef tends to be towards the police for killing an innocent man, i.e. getting it wrong, not towards the police being given the option to shoot in the first place. I accept that it is possible that two reasonably intelligent individuals can hold opposing views on a subject such as this, because it isn't really the 'head' that carry the day for us, it's generally the 'gut'. That is why many people form an opinion first, then seek arguments to justify it. Whilst Keynes said, "when the facts change I change my mind - what do you do, sir?", it takes a brave man to actually do this over such a divisive issue as capital punishment. I'm certainly not prepared to override what my gut is telling me, and I don't suppose that you are either.
I am in support of the restoration of capital punishment, but I would not be so crass as to claim therefore that the odd innocent going to the gallows is OK, Grifter. How is it that as a people we've become so soft on our own soil yet largely turn a blind eye when it comes to the inevitable collateral damage of our actions abroad? Where's the outcry then, when innocent people are killed in the course of us prosecuting war in Afghanistan and Iraq? There's many a left-liberal that would have us intervene in Syria and God knows where else who thinks not a jot about such things, but prefers to consider the big picture. I would not necessarily criticise them for this, but would criticise them for their double standards.
Studies in the US have shown that the murder rate is actually higher in states with the death penalty. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/ It would be hard to argue that the death penalty encourages murder, but surely this at least refutes the deterrent argument? The head v gut issue for me, is that, whilst in some cases the gut might say 'kill the bastard', the head says that this would be wrong as it would just be vengeance-taking.
Could that be a case that states with a high murder rate feel the need to have the death penalty as an option? That would mean the death penalty was a consequence of the murder rate.
I don't think so. These are states that have always had the death penalty - they haven't recently introduced it because of high murder rates. In any case, if the deterrent worked, the murder rate would have come down.
As I said earlier, one should be cautious when comparing the US with the UK on this subject. There is a significant cultural difference when it comes to gun ownership and gun crime, for example. Whilst the UK is clearly catching up, the US has always been an uneasy composite of different ethnicities, nationalities, tribal traditions and customs; far more palpable than in the UK thus far. At the risk of a sweeping generalisation, your typical ignorant American may be more likely to reach for a firearm when dissed than your typical ignorant Brit. Just my opinion and many will disagree. I don't see execution as taking vengeance at all. I think slime such as the murderer of Millie Dowler have demonstrated through their actions that they have no place is our society. Some will consider incarceration for the remainder of their naturals to be a reasonable solution whereas others like myself would prefer that they we removed irrevocably from society.
Would those in favour of the death penalty be prepared to execute someone themselves? Pull the trigger, string them up, electrocute them, lethal inject them, chop their heads off? It's not like a war situation, it's killing in cold blood, murder. "To kill a human being is to kill all humanity, to save a human being is to save all humanity" Qu'ran 5:32 مِن أَجلِ ذٰلِكَ كَتَبنا عَلىٰ بَنى إِسرٰءيلَ أَنَّهُ مَن قَتَلَ نَفسًا بِغَيرِ نَفسٍ أَو فَسادٍ فِى الأَرضِ فَكَأَنَّما قَتَلَ النّاسَ جَميعًا وَمَن أَحياها فَكَأَنَّما أَحيَا النّاسَ جَميعًا ۚ وَلَقَد جاءَتهُم رُسُلُنا بِالبَيِّنٰتِ ثُمَّ إِنَّ كَثيرًا مِنهُم بَعدَ ذٰلِكَ فِى الأَرضِ لَمُسرِفونَ
