Guest pelmetman Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 colin - 2013-07-01 9:30 PM pelmetman - 2013-07-01 8:05 PM What bothers me is the cost of keeping these people in comfort for the rest of their days...................IF.........they suffered for their crimes I might not be so bothered.............but they don't *-)...............they just use the system to take the p*ss out of the authorities...........but atleast it gives the authorities a job *-) I've never been in a prison, but my cousin has to make the occasional visit. She was only just telling us how horrible just visiting is and how it's not as cosy as the papers make out. Well that explains why they're so keen to get back in on such a regular basis *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 colin - 2013-07-01 9:23 PM pelmetman - 2013-07-01 6:16 PM malc d - 2013-07-01 1:32 PM antony1969 - 2013-07-01 12:22 PM I wonder how barbaric relatives of murder victims or victims of rapists think capital punishment is ? It's certainly must be regarded as barbaric if they hang the wrong bloke. If we had a justice system that was infallible capital punishment wouldn't bother me too much - but until that time comes I am opposed to it. :-( Has anyone been wrongly convicted of murder in recent years, since the introduction of DNA technology Malc? :-S Ah, DNA the holy grail of evidence, yet still we have had problems with wrongful convictions due to mistakes and juries being convinced that DNA cannot be wrong. Do you know of anyone who has been convicted for murder on dodgy DNA evidence, within the last few years Colin? :-S...........just curious ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 colin - 2013-07-01 9:30 PM pelmetman - 2013-07-01 8:05 PM What bothers me is the cost of keeping these people in comfort for the rest of their days...................IF.........they suffered for their crimes I might not be so bothered.............but they don't *-)...............they just use the system to take the p*ss out of the authorities...........but atleast it gives the authorities a job *-) I've never been in a prison, but my cousin has to make the occasional visit. She was only just telling us how horrible just visiting is and how it's not as cosy as the papers make out. Obviously prison isn't horrible enough to put off repeat offenders from going inside though is it ? If our prisons were a bit more like the Bangkok Hilton then the criminals in our society may not be so eager to get back in . Personally I don't care about the conditions inside , I care about victims of crime . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 pelmetman - 2013-07-01 9:45 PM colin - 2013-07-01 9:23 PM pelmetman - 2013-07-01 6:16 PM malc d - 2013-07-01 1:32 PM antony1969 - 2013-07-01 12:22 PM I wonder how barbaric relatives of murder victims or victims of rapists think capital punishment is ? It's certainly must be regarded as barbaric if they hang the wrong bloke. If we had a justice system that was infallible capital punishment wouldn't bother me too much - but until that time comes I am opposed to it. :-( Has anyone been wrongly convicted of murder in recent years, since the introduction of DNA technology Malc? :-S Ah, DNA the holy grail of evidence, yet still we have had problems with wrongful convictions due to mistakes and juries being convinced that DNA cannot be wrong. Do you know of anyone who has been convicted for murder on dodgy DNA evidence, within the last few years Colin? :-S...........just curious ;-) The last one I know of was 2008, now start searching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 1footinthegrave Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 The problem with capital punishment and austere prison conditions is one only has to look to the USA model to see it does nothing to rehabilitate, or act as a deterent, wasn't it Albert Pierrepont that said hanging achieved nothing, an opinion I respect, far better for them to live incarcerated for the rest of their lives methinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek pringle Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 Hi All, I think that the biggest deterrent to bringing back Capital Punishment in this country is sadly to say the Police Force and Judicial system of this country. Whilst in principle I am for the return of the death penalty ,the actions of different police forces up and down the country over the last few years , and it appears more and more coming out every day, I cannot help but think that many innocent people would have been hung. The police seem to have been happy just getting anybody for certain crimes, and when D.N.A. or whatever new evidence has come forward leading to the release of these prisoners , thank god they are still here to release. cheers derek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John 47 Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 1footinthegrave - 2013-07-02 9:38 AM The problem with capital punishment and austere prison conditions is one only has to look to the USA model to see it does nothing to rehabilitate, or act as a deterent, wasn't it Albert Pierrepont that said hanging achieved nothing, an opinion I respect, far better for them to live incarcerated for the rest of their lives methinks. I agree. Someone mentioned the "Bangkok Hilton" earlier on but if it really was a deterrent then it wouldn't be crammed to the rafters and nobody would ever be convicted of drug smuggling in Thailand. The truth is that people who commit crimes don't think they will be caught. Even the ones who've spent most of their lives in jail think "this time I'll beat the system". And, as for capital punishment, well the murder rate is higher in the USA than in the UK so people can work it out for themselves! Some have said that the number of wrongful convictions these days is small. I'd love to know how they arrived at that conclusion because it can be many years before the truth emerges, so the lack of statistics for people wrongly convicted in the past couple of years means nothing. Look at the figures for the last few years in ten years time and then they might have a point. In the meantime, if only one in a hundred people who are hanged is hanged wrongly then that is too many - especially if it is me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Had Enough Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 I do find it amusing that people claim that deterrents don't work! Of course for some people they don't but for many of us they do. That's why most of us don't drink and drive or speed excessively or bring in the odd expensive item from abroad without declaring it. It's not social responsibility or strict morals for many of us but the fear of prosecution and its impact on our jobs and our standing in society. Society faces moral dilemmas all the time. Is it right to send in soldiers to kill one hundred people if it will save the lives of thousands? Is it right to kill murderers if it will deter others from killing and thus save innocent lives? The liberal experiment has been a huge failure. We were promised that, if capital punishment were abolished criminals would be jailed for life. A man can now kill his wife and be out if a few years and we wonder why the murder rate is now many times higher than it was before abolition. Criminals now carry guns as a matter of routine and gangs proliferate on our streets. Even more worrying is the number of murders carried out by people who would have been hanged but are released and go on to kill again. I'm prepared to accept an occasional wrong conviction, just as I'm prepared to accept that soldiers have to kill to prevent even more loss of life or to stop aggressors from attacking us. No one should be executed without definite and unimpeachable proof but the likes of Dale Cregan and the murderers of Lee Rigby should be pay the ultimate penalty. I must add though that if we did have the death penalty Dale Cregan would probably not have killed the two women officers. He had nothing to lose and was going to prison anyway, but what if he knew he'd be hanged? He had nothing to gain from those murders and they were simply acts of revenge against the police. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John 47 Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 Had Enough - 2013-07-02 11:11 AM I do find it amusing that people claim that deterrents don't work! Of course for some people they don't but for many of us they do. That's why most of us don't drink and drive or speed excessively or bring in the odd expensive item from abroad without declaring it. It's not social responsibility or strict morals for many of us but the fear of prosecution and its impact on our jobs and our standing in society. Society faces moral dilemmas all the time. Is it right to send in soldiers to kill one hundred people if it will save the lives of thousands? Is it right to kill murderers if it will deter others from killing and thus save innocent lives? The liberal experiment has been a huge failure. We were promised that, if capital punishment were abolished criminals would be jailed for life. A man can now kill his wife and be out if a few years and we wonder why the murder rate is now many times higher than it was before abolition. Criminals now carry guns as a matter of routine and gangs proliferate on our streets. Even more worrying is the number of murders carried out by people who would have been hanged but are released and go on to kill again. I'm prepared to accept an occasional wrong conviction, just as I'm prepared to accept that soldiers have to kill to prevent even more loss of life or to stop aggressors from attacking us. No one should be executed without definite and unimpeachable proof but the likes of Dale Cregan and the murderers of Lee Rigby should be pay the ultimate penalty. I must add though that if we did have the death penalty Dale Cregan would probably not have killed the two women officers. He had nothing to lose and was going to prison anyway, but what if he knew he'd be hanged? He had nothing to gain from those murders and they were simply acts of revenge against the police. Yes, deterrents do work for most law-abiding citizens but we are not the ones that matter here. We would (presumably) not commit murder whether the so-called deterrent was hanging or a £50 fine! You only have to compare the figures for the USA and the UK to see that capital punishment does not deter those who choose to kill. You talk about "definite and unimpeachable proof". Such a thing is virtually impossible when human beings are involved. Nobody is infallible, so your test would never be passed. Further, there is repeated research that shows that if the penalty is death then juries are less likely to convict, so there could well have been more murderers let out to kill again when the penalty was hanging! You may be prepared to accept the "occasional wrong conviction" but would that still apply if it was you who was so convicted? As for Dale Cregan, well, I don't know what was going on in his head any more than you do (although you seem to think you do) but I doubt that in that situation he was thinking at all rationally and I doubt very much whether he would have acted differently if hanging was still an option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 Wether been hung is a deterrent or not to criminals really doesn't matter , the fact would be that if a rapist or murderer were convicted without doubt and then hung we would all be a lot safer and need never fear that individual again because as we know with rapists especially they commit the same crime time and time again . Of course the financial costs for allowing these beasts to live also comes into it , hang em , they have no sense of decency towards victims so why should any be given in return . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 1footinthegrave Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 Yes I fully. Agree, the Guildford four should have been strung up, along with the Birmingham six. :-S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nowtelse2do Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 Not 100% sure but I believe there is still doubt over the Hanratty case (A6 murder 1962) A former police detective who later re-investigated the crime said he was convinced that James Hanratty was innocent. Should he have been hung? Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 nowtelse2do - 2013-07-02 4:13 PM Not 100% sure but I believe there is still doubt over the Hanratty case (A6 murder 1962) A former police detective who later re-investigated the crime said he was convinced that James Hanratty was innocent. Should he have been hung? Dave Dunno Dave :-S...................I was 4 ;-)..................but for people like Dale Cregan where the evidence is irrefutably................keeping him in comfort for the next 40 years at taxpayer expense is a waste of money *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John 47 Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 antony1969 - 2013-07-02 12:34 PM Wether been hung is a deterrent or not to criminals really doesn't matter , the fact would be that if a rapist or murderer were convicted without doubt and then hung we would all be a lot safer and need never fear that individual again because as we know with rapists especially they commit the same crime time and time again . Of course the financial costs for allowing these beasts to live also comes into it , hang em , they have no sense of decency towards victims so why should any be given in return . Point 1 - rapists don't get hanged under British law, regardless of whether we bring back hanging or not. Point 2 - to hang someone for murder you first have to convict them and if the research is accurate then under capital punishment it was more likely that a murderer would go free because juries are less inclined to convict. Therefore, logic dictates that you would not necessarily get what you want even if hanging came back tomorrow. On top of that, some would say (and I am one of them) that locking people away for a long time is much more of a punishment than a quick death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nowtelse2do Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 John 47 - 2013-07-02 4:40 PM On top of that, some would say (and I am one of them) that locking people away for a long time is much more of a punishment than a quick death. I would agree with that but with less of the luxuries they have. Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 nowtelse2do - 2013-07-02 4:13 PM Not 100% sure but I believe there is still doubt over the Hanratty case (A6 murder 1962) A former police detective who later re-investigated the crime said he was convinced that James Hanratty was innocent. Should he have been hung? Dave The last judgement using DNA evidence concluded that it was a 'safe conviction' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nowtelse2do Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 In light of DNA testing being done years later, some other "experts" did disagree Colin. I'm not saying he was guilty or not guilty but what I do think is that it was an unsafe verdict for those times (there was doubt) and if the same evidence was submited today (DNA testing not included) I think he would have been found not guilty. Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 1footinthegrave Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 Given how the Guildford four and the Birmingham six were fitted up by the Police, how sure can anyone be that DNA evidence could not be tampered with to accomplish a similar outcome, I don't have sufficient knowledge of the processes involved, but I'd trust the average copper as far as I could throw him, like the git in the Tomlinson assault and subsequent death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 John 47 - 2013-07-02 4:40 PM antony1969 - 2013-07-02 12:34 PM Wether been hung is a deterrent or not to criminals really doesn't matter , the fact would be that if a rapist or murderer were convicted without doubt and then hung we would all be a lot safer and need never fear that individual again because as we know with rapists especially they commit the same crime time and time again . Of course the financial costs for allowing these beasts to live also comes into it , hang em , they have no sense of decency towards victims so why should any be given in return . Point 1 - rapists don't get hanged under British law, regardless of whether we bring back hanging or not. Point 2 - to hang someone for murder you first have to convict them and if the research is accurate then under capital punishment it was more likely that a murderer would go free because juries are less inclined to convict. Therefore, logic dictates that you would not necessarily get what you want even if hanging came back tomorrow. On top of that, some would say (and I am one of them) that locking people away for a long time is much more of a punishment than a quick death. Obviously even I know rapists don't get the death penalty John , I was talking about what should happen in my humble opinion . As for locking someone away for a long time been more of a punishment , it's amazing how quickly we as humans adapt to our surroundings and build fresh lives with what we have , therefore the new lives that " lifers " get inside isn't maybe as bad for them as you think . Personally I think the ultimate price for murder / rape should be hanging , no worries about re-offending as many do , no financial burden on the tax payer and surely for those who care about how shocking life in prison is then it would be better for the poor convicted as he / she wont have to suffer the terrible conditions inside , after all how much Xbox can one play ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 1footinthegrave Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 Another Daily Mail reader, I suggest you go down the Scrubbs and get a reality check. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nowtelse2do Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 1footinthegrave - 2013-07-02 9:04 PM Another Daily Mail reader, I suggest you go down the Scrubbs and get a reality check. Looking at your photo Mike, looks like your having one.. :-D :-D Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightrider Posted July 2, 2013 Author Share Posted July 2, 2013 If a murderer is put away for life he cannot offend again unless he kills a fellow inmate? I am not an advocate of capital punishment, mistakes do happen as in the case of Timothy Evans and Stefan Kisko who served 16 years for a murder he didn't commit, Albert Pierrepoint in his book said that in his opinion the fear of the death penalty never stopped anyone killing someone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogerC Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 Maybe if the sentencing regime was more robust...and life meant life or 10 years meant 10 years and not out in 5 years if you're a good boy there would be no need for this discussion? Possibly the death penalty 'should' be brought back for 'premeditated murder' but ONLY where there is concrete proof of guilt such as in the case of Lee Rigby. Given this caveat there would be rare cases where the sentence was passed. In all other cases life should mean life. Whether the prison regime is too soft or not is in a way an irrelevance. What is relevant is the posturing of politicians....remember the 'tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime' speech by Bliar? The claiming by politicians and Chief Constables that crime is dropping? Maybe it is just the fact that classifying/recording of reported crimes has been altered to fit the political message. As I'm sure we are all aware Chief Constables are more inclined to be 'political animals' than they are 'coppers at heart'. Basically a tough/honest/apolitical regime of policing coupled to a CPS that reflects the needs of society would be a start. Couple that with a robust judiciary and sentencing which means what it says 'on the tin' and we could possibly be on the way to the society most decent people desire. But don't hold your breath just yet.................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightrider Posted July 3, 2013 Author Share Posted July 3, 2013 You are sent to prison not so much for punishment, you are sent to prison for the deprivation of your liberty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 1footinthegrave - 2013-07-02 9:04 PM Another Daily Mail reader, I suggest you go down the Scrubbs and get a reality check. Yes obviously the Scrubbs and the rest of these places are terrible , horrible , rat infested hell holes . I presume that's why they are full to bursting point because the big bad naughty criminal type geezers really don't like going inside do they ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.