Death Penalty

Contraversial, maybe, but in nailed on cases like the Nowegian Anders Breijvik, where there is no possibility of 'reasonable doubt'. Indeed he's even accepted that he did it, is proud of it and would do it again. he's even asked for the death penalty (Only for vanity) I believe we should actually bring back the death penalty for cases where there is no shadow of a doubt, no chance of any misscarraige of justice ...... Bringing it back would be a great way of getting lobbed out of Europe so not having to put up with their stupidity any longer, plus its much cheaper on the public purse

And it should be televised on the BBC. But after 8pm. Mainly so that I have time to get home and watch.

One of the judges is I believe going to be thrown off the case for even suggesting that the death penalty be imposed.
I think we could learn a lot from the way Norway treats its convicts.
For me it's nothing to do with reasonable doubt, it's about the ethics of your society.

You won't be watching it on TV LJ...I thought you had volunteered to carry out the executions yourself?

True... but then with the amount of executions that would have to take place I would have to take a backseat for some of them.

Would be interesting though. To kill more people than the serial killers and murderers I would be executing combined and probably get an OBE for it.

What would that stand for then?...'Our Belligerent Executioner' perhaps?

diggers wrote:One of the judges is I believe going to be thrown off the case for even suggesting that the death penalty be imposed.
I think we could learn a lot from the way Norway treats its convicts.
For me it's nothing to do with reasonable doubt, it's about the ethics of your society.

Diggers I respect your views and would imagine that you will not be alone. But there seems to be more EVIL people around these days doing some heinous crimes. Why should society tollerate thse people and where insanity isn't an issue, or no doubt whatsoever that a mass murderer, kiddy fiddler type nutter is guilty, then I feel society is doing itself a big favour in ridding us of these characters. You could argue that it would be the thin end of the wedge etc, which would need to be sorted. But for certain crimes where no doubt is involved then I say top them and save us money and act as a deterent.

Each to their own Doc, each to their own. As Ive said before though it will never happen, it would probably be a vote winner but no political party will touch it as a policy. Would be a huge step backwards IMO.
Our whole penal system needs reforming, but not in this kind of way.

I'm with Diggers on this.

A decade ago, I probably wouldn't have been.

We don't want justice to regress to an eye for an eye.

Tricky one

I wouldn't for a second be upset about someone like Breijvik being killed off, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's the right thing to do.

The problem i have with it is letting off people on grounds of insanity. I'm no doctor but surely anyone who thinks it's a good idea to go off and murder a bunch of people must be to some extent unbalanced or at least thinking irrationally?

MustPuttBetter wrote:Tricky one

I wouldn't for a second be upset about someone like Breijvik being killed off, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's the right thing to do.

The problem i have with it is letting off people on grounds of insanity. I'm no doctor but surely anyone who thinks it's a good idea to go off and murder a bunch of people must be to some extent unbalanced or at least thinking irrationally?

I would agree with that to some extent, because on a personal level I could never do it, unless something pushed me over the edge and it was spur of the moment thing. (Have to say though I cannot see what it would be to do that) Would that count for being unbalanced/unstable though, yes but for a moment only I suspect. Its like the 'crime of passion' defence really. There are however some people who are evil and get pleasure out of torturing someone, or chopping them into pieces, or seriel murderers, mass murderers etc. The Ripper is a classic case, along with Fred & Rose West and quite a few more well known cases.

so Ian Huntley. Does he deserve to die?

I would say yes. And in a manner suitable to his particular crime. Painfully.

Does he deserve to die , maybe. I'm sure lots of people who are alive deserve to die for various reasons. Doesn't mean we have a right to take his life.
You are living in the wrong country LJ, I'd happily start a whip round to help you relocate.

I stand by my previous statements.

When you take life then you should lose all human rights. You have violated the rights of another in what was a fairly gruesome manner in the case of Huntley. Why does he then deserve consideration from society as a whole?

Doc wrote:I would agree with that to some extent, because on a personal level I could never do it, unless something pushed me over the edge and it was spur of the moment thing. (Have to say though I cannot see what it would be to do that) Would that count for being unbalanced/unstable though, yes but for a moment only I suspect. Its like the 'crime of passion' defence really. There are however some people who are evil and get pleasure out of torturing someone, or chopping them into pieces, or seriel murderers, mass murderers etc. The Ripper is a classic case, along with Fred & Rose West and quite a few more well known cases.

The thing is getting pleasure out of torturing or murdering someone isn't normal. Therefore someone who does so must be insane/abnormal/unbalanced?
Even people who get pushed over the edge claim temporary insanity. I don't really see how anyone who is willing to kill someone else can be deemed to have their brain working properly, even if that is only for a moment.

However, i firmly believe that when these guys who hurt an intruder/burglar in their home and then get banged up themselves, that that is a huge injustice. As i do feel that you cannot be protected by the law whilst in the act of breaking the law. Not sure if i feel that applies to the morales of the death sentance though. Might be a bit far

MPB I know exactly what you're saying, but surely there are certain people who commit certain types of murder in a certain way, who are just downright bad/evil. There's no doubt whatsoever that they are 100% culpable and indeed get gratification from doing it and admitting it. For me this catagory of criminal need to be put down just like a 'killer dog' . Society has got be better off without them, and in fairness locking them away in high security places costs a shed load of cash, and yes I know money shoudn't come into it, but its a real fact of the times. How many of these go on to commit the same crime a few years later, even whilst in prison. The prisoner who was brutally murdered had rights too ....

In the Norwegian case we have a man who planned to do serious damage to his own people and in massive numbers. He didn't go looking for muslims, he actually went to wipe out as many innocent Norwegians as he could. besides the bomb blasted victims, he took great pleasure in shooting as many young people as he could and just because they were part of a political summer camp. I'd love to see results from the death penalty question being raised in Norway.

Doc, I think you'd find the Norwegian reaction to the death penalty would be more or less the same. You don't make a knee jerk reaction to change your whole moral standing because of one psycho.There ethos is way more liberal than ours.
Also How do you make a call as to whether murder is worse than systematic child abuse, it's all subjective.
I know LJ would shoot all of them quite happily and worse with his own fair hands and enjoy it. Not really something I'd want to do myself to be honest.

I'm not sure how anyone can say that anyone who tortures or murders someone is insane.

That's a silly comment.

Why's that Merc?
To clarify I said anyone who takes pleasure from torture or murder is not normal mentally. Please explain why that's silly.

I think feeling the need to brand an opinion you might not agree with as silly is rather insecure

FYI

Definition
"Insane - a state of mind that prevents normal perception, behavior, or social interaction"

Which part of that definition does enjoying murdering people not meet?

Diggers. If rehabilitation worked then fine. But it doesn't. We are unlikely to be allowed to use behaviour modification therapy. So that leaves killing them.

At the end of the day your "evolved sense of compassion" allows a threat to remain in place to society as a whole. And I don't think that's particularly sensible.

Child molesters don't get rehabilitated. They get put into a section of prisons with others who have performed the same disgusting acts that they have. They make new networks and then get out to just do it again. That's why they have a register for them... so they know where they will be. Why should we suffer that sort of scum to live amoung us when they could be killed upon being proven guilty thus saving us a fortune and also removing that potential danger when they do get released on 'parole for good behaviour'?

You've been watching Silence of the Lambs too often LJ. How many high profile killers of the type you'd happily kill have ever escaped to pose a threat to society
It's just scare mongering.

No digs. they get released rather than escaping.

From a journal in sci-am.

"perpetrators of different types of sex crimes exhibit varying rates of repeat offending. The 15-year recidivism rate is 13 percent for incest perpetrators, 24 percent for rapists, and 35 percent for child molesters of boy victims."

24% and 35% are far too high a risk in my opinion.

And do you think there is any actual constructive rehabilatation carried out in the British penal system ?
Just out of interest whats your list of crimes that would warrant the death penalty.......bearing in mind you wouldnt even allow an appeal process.

murder
child molesting
anything premeditated which impacts anothers quality of life permanently

Fair enough. So presumably you would include someone like Tony Blair who's actions, in contravention of International Law, led to the deaths of thousands of innocent people ?

I'd have the death penalty for anyone who can't use apostrophes properly

Isnt it apostrophe's??

Davie wrote:I'd have the death penalty for anyone who can't use apostrophes properly

And Id have the death penalty for anyone who suggested the death penalty for anyone who cant use apostropes correctly. This is what would happen, there would be nobody left before long. Apart from LJ who would be killing everyone so would be last man standing.

Going back slightly.

I support the execution of Tony Blair. And Brown as well.

Id probably have Cameron and Osbourne tortured a bit. And Boris.
Did anyone watch QT last night, its a shame George Galloway is such a tool with some odd ideas because he is a brilliant orator and "politician".

So you agree with the concept of torture and execution.

Now it's just a matter of where you draw the line.

I agree with the concept of having a laugh on a messageboard. I find the concept of torture and execution abhorent in any democratic, egalitarian society.

I think anyone who kills someone should be killed.

Just take a minute to think about the logical implication of that.

I'm not saying I agree with it but I guess the idea would be everyone who kills someone illegally should be killed. I don't think you could go into a BUPA home and arrest all the world war 2 vets......

Apart from anything else, why do you suppose Breivik asked for the death penalty? 20+ years inside with no hope of reprieve has to be harder to take that a short, sharp exit.

MustPuttBetter wrote:I'm not saying I agree with it but I guess the idea would be everyone who kills someone illegally should be killed. I don't think you could go into a BUPA home and arrest all the world war 2 vets......

You could and should if they were german.

smithersjones wrote:Apart from anything else, why do you suppose Breivik asked for the death penalty? 20+ years inside with no hope of reprieve has to be harder to take that a short, sharp exit.

Obviously with the whole terrorist thing, not that I particularly see Breivik as one, you also run the risk of making a martyr of them. I suspect this is the kind of infamous status that someone like Breivik yearns for, rather than rotting away and being gradually forgotten about.