As long as its just a basic room, with no TV or window, that would be fine, they need to be made to suffer, just like the victim
The EU debate - Part II
- Thread starter PINKIE
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
- Status
As long as its just a basic room, with no TV or window, that would be fine, they need to be made to suffer, just like the victim
Yes, I get that, no problem. Point two could also be true if they never let murderers out but they do which goes back to my point. As I said I'm not in favour of the ultimate deterrent as so to speak but there has to be a better system? Someone else said 'if one innocent life is lost then it's a mockery' I agree but that has to work both ways. Clearly 'life means life' would be good enough for me but stats show it's all about money and not about innocent people. hey ho...
I totally agree with this, I think if you commit first degree murder then you should get life in prision end of.
But as you say, prisons are about money now and selling contracts off to private contractors...
There's a difference between re offending (one person committing crime after crime after crime) and a deterrent (stopping others of committing a crime).
we have no death penalty and America does yet they have a far higher murder rate per person than we do. Some states in the US have the death penalty and some don't, yet the murder rate is not higher in those that do not. Also the murder rate did not suddenly increase after we abolished the death penalty. If the death penalty was a deterrent you'd expect that to have happened. Finally, the vast majority of murders are not pre planned. They are caused by spur of the moment loss of control or rage. The death penalty is not going prevent that rate or loss of control imo.
Not a fan of "life means life" myself. Longer minimum terms I'd not disagree with but if a 20-year-old commits a murder then I think a 20 year stretch is a fair enough punishment. I don't think anyone benefits from pensioners being inside for something they did 50 years ago.
It's an interesting argument, and nicely put. While I'm still for 'life means life' your argument certainly has a lot of weight
Everything has to be considered and I've heard the arguments for programe to reabilitate maybe a blend of both on a one strike and you're back in?
The problem is that there is no simple solution for how to stop violent crimes but politicians seem determined to have a sound bite that makes fora good headline but refuse to properly research and fund a proper rehabilitation and prevention programme.
I guess it's simpler to rant about crime than to actually do the right thing because doing the right thing may seem namby pampy.
If anyone hurt my daughters I would want them dead. However, I can not be allowed to decide on the punishment as, imo, that way lies chaos.
I guess it's simpler to rant about crime than to actually do the right thing because doing the right thing may seem namby pampy.
If anyone hurt my daughters I would want them dead. However, I can not be allowed to decide on the punishment as, imo, that way lies chaos.
Tell that to the person that has been murdered.
Yes every case is different, but if the 20 year old was sadistic murder or even a terrorist, life should mean life
I can't, because they are dead.
Every case should be treated differently and the person in question tested but I expect there are a lot of older people in prison using up a space who aren't a threat to society any more. **** knows what they'd do with themselves after being let out though.
If you fancy a pedantic argument then yes.
But since the majority of 1.6 billion Muslims just get on with their lives and live amongst fellow humans...I would if I was sincere with my queries take them as an example.
You would too, but that's not what interests you.
Read this thread from your last message and you will see what I mean because many others have answered your question a lot more eloquently than me, I would just be repeating what they said.
God forbid, the likes of ISIS come onto our shores....who's side do you think I and 99% of the other Muslims would be fighting on?
What would that say to you? Or are you gay and therefore troubled.
Last edited:
If you want to argue with stats on murder rates and the opinions of most criminologists then fine. Not to mention the obvious fact you can't reverse an execution when we still see loads of corruption in the police forces of supposedly reputable countries.
Loads of things are. Education too. There seem to be few worse deterrents than capital punishment.
You asked for people to tell you a better deterrent. The death penalty has been proven to be a poor deterrent and this is backed up by the opinion of people who know far more than any of us do on the issue.
- Status