It’s difficult not to agree really. Why fund the lives of animals like that in perpetuity when they will bring nothing whatsoever back to society? They are a useless drain of national resource.
Off Topic The Politics Thread
- Thread starter Stroller
- 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
-
I’m increasingly ambivalent about the death penalty, but the fact that, since 1973, 187 people sentenced to be executed in the USA have been exonerated (sadly some of them after the sentence has been carried out) makes it pretty clear that mistakes do happen - and these are just the known mistakes. I don’t think the U.K. legal system is inherently any more accurate than the US one.
Your definition of people who ‘bring nothing whatsoever back to society……useless drain of national resource’ can of course also be applied to many people who aren’t even in prison, let alone murderers. We can start with the House of Lords……
That's 187 people over (let's call it) 48 years... so (rounded up) 4 people per annum... and not all were actually executed? I'd be interested to know whether those 187 sentences meted were fairly evenly spread over those 48 years, more biased to the early period or later, and how many of those exonerations have taken place in recent years due to advances in DNA and other forensic techniques. Of course, there's always the possibility that an innocent person may be executed, but that's kinda happening now anyway, e.g. the police shooting Jean Charles de Menezes, Harry Stanley, both without even a trial.
I still think there's a deterrent effect of the death penalty that's sadly impossible to measure. Back in this country in the 1950s and earlier, if you were on a blag and one of your accomplices killed somebody, then you could hang alongside them if caught. There is evidence that criminals used to search each other before a job to check that their mates weren't tooled up, which clearly indicates that there was a deterrent effect back then. I'm not completely sure of my facts, but I believe that when the 'accomplice law' was lifted then number of people killed and seriously injured during blags increased.
I'm sure that with modern forensics etc. it would be possible to apply the death penalty to those that were conclusively proven guilty and life imprisonment for the others where all conditions weren't met. At least that would get rid of some of the bastards.
Sarah Lancaster's killer was a minor at the time and the murder was not found to be premeditated.
I think there must be a large slice of deterrent built into Amess's killer's sentence. It's must be chilling for Gove or Starmer's families that the killer considered them for the stabbing. MP's are such easy targets.
We’ve done this one before haven’t we? As I say I’m ambivalent about this. Some offenders (and not just for murder) I could happily do in myself. But I am uneasy about legal state sanctioned murder. But if we had it I wouldn’t be on the streets protesting about it. Doubt it’s on the agenda unless we have a really weird election result.
“Kinda”? Are you alright?
Just watched the Jimmy Saville doc on Netflix…..I would gladly have strung that **** up….and had a party afterwards.
Yeah, we have done it before. I’m at the age where I’m repeating myself. I’m at the age where I’m repeating myself.
Am I alright? Yeah, kinda…
Ah, but you’ve just hanged the DJ.
You must log in or register to see media
Brilliant!!! The inquiry heading "Operation Rotting Fish" sums it up perfectly.
Anyway, it’s not relevant anymore, we will follow our leader and simply apologise insincerely if we break the law, pay a tiny fine, and then ignore it.
Simon Hart, Secretary of State for Wales (me neither) has been trotting out a new line of defence this morning - lawbreaking is not a resigning offence, it all happened two years ago and was reported in the Times at the time with no issues being raised. So that makes it ok, somehow.
I get the outrage, much of which I think is sincere, although there is doubtless a lot of political tactical bluster as well, but I don’t really share it, because my expectations are so low I’m numb to each shameless event now. Some of it is fascinating. Jacob Rees Mogg can apparently lie and make up bizarre excuses without even catching his breath, he seems completely at ease with his own sense of unearned superiority and entitlement. As he is someone who is said to be deeply religious I found this really weird - but presumably his particular brand of fundamentalist Catholicism is exactly why he can behave in this creepy and odious way with a clear conscience - he believes he just needs to confess and say sorry to his God, say a Hail Mary, and he’s let off. He actually acts with supreme integrity, on his own debased terms. What Johnson’s excuse is I have no idea, and as for these puppets who are endlessly wheeled out to defend him, clearly self respect is not top of their characteristics.
I think this particular bunch genuinely are a new level of creepy self interest, May and her mob were inept but not this blatantly corrupt and self serving, but I have absolutely no doubt that any government of any party would provide plenty of sickening examples of contempt for the voters. But then again, how many of us have actually met and had a serious conversation with the people we (well, not me) vote for to ‘represent’ us?
Genuinely interested in what you both would do about this issue if you were in power.
Put an asylum processing centre in Calais, or maybe allow people to get here by conventional methods to apply for asylum without being criminalised in doing so.
That would stop them for sure and the French would be hugely helpful too.
I do hope Boris, Patel and Foster read this inspirational eureka suggestion.