But they're two separate issues Dev. The fact that these monsters are being released is down to faults within the criminal justice system that need to be addressed. They should be locked up till they day they die.
To the person who decided to leave me this message but who was not actually bold enough to say it on a thread: Thread: Should We Reintroduce... Dev you thick ****, which of those 3 men killed FOR atheism? Read the post again moron, where did I say they killed for aetheism? No wonder you wanted to remain anonymous when you have the gall to call me thick.
I agree, though I would have hanged the bastards, but I know that will never happen so a life sentence would have been apt. All i'm saying is that it is cases such as this that has led people to call for the death penalty to be reintroduced, it's maybe not a logical argument in favour of the death penalty but we are talking of a country full of peple who read the Sun and the Daily Mail.
Don't agree with the death penalty but I believe it's time for the sentence handed out to be served i.e you get 6 years you serve 6 years...no time off for good behaviour. Maybe even mandatory sentences for certain crimes (like murder/rape)
Well said - the ****er who helped kill baby P is being released after serving 2 years of a six year sentence - how in the name of God is that in any way acceptable? The good people of tottenham should be rioting about that..........
I agree with the Death Penalty for certain crimes - Murder & Treason. Why should we house, clothe, feed & provide free medical care for the likes of Dennis Neilsen, Peter Sutcliffe and Rose West and have Tony Bliar (not a typo) still around and profiting from his crimes against our nation.
Very difficult question. One part of me says definitely for certain crimes but the other half says "could you be the executioner?" to which I find difficulty convincing myself that I could. Something must change though. At present if one wants to commit a crime it can be seen attractive to some when weighing up the probable consequences of being caught and found guilty. Then there's the situation where someone in prison is actually better off than some poor innocent people. Taxpayers' money being used to keep someone, who has committed a horrible crime, in better conditions than innocent homeless people is all wrong. If a murderer is let out and kills again (lets say twice), that's 2 more lives lost (innocent lives). With the death penalty, only one life would have been lost (that of a murderer) and 2 innocent lives saved. Also the money it would have cost to keep them in prison could presumably home an innocent homeless person. The problem would be deciding which crimes deserved the death penalty. Think of it this way. If someone battered your child to death would you kill them if you saw them? A painless death for the culprit might be a fortunate way out for them.
If life means life in every case, how would you distinguish between a Roy Whiting,who murdered Sara Payne and an individual who murders someone because they sexually abused his child or someone, who has killed a burglar unlawfully rather than in self-defence. If an individual is to be released after a long time in prison, they have to be prepared for it by being allowed out for example at weekends to help them adjust. That is a separate argument from whether they have served enough time in prison.
What i'm proposing isn't a life means life in every case. It's reserved for the scum of society, such as *****philes, serial killers, spree killers etc.
In many cases it would be black & white, an easy decision. But there would be borderline cases. Borderline cases would probably have to be spared but serve longer sentences. Another problem is that someone who is not short of money can hire the best lawyers to twist a B&W case into a borderline case.
If the crime can proved 100% and the criminal has taken life then yes he/she should forfeit there own life! However like batsmen in cricket if there is any doubt ........then a life custodial sentence awaits!
