|
Post by GeoFox on Feb 25, 2008 17:44:02 GMT -1
On the last vote they had on this wasnt it a 51/49 split?? I think there is becoming more of an argument for it returning for some more serious crimes, which are becoming all too common but there would need to be very tight controls in place. With the emergence of DNA evidence then maybe the convictions are more concrete? I dont know, i'm undecided but i do know that if anybody did anything to seriously harm my family i would want them dead. Yeah it was something like that, so the Sun's sample isn't wholly typical. I probably would too, but when it gets personal it clouds any reasonable judgement. You could never be 100% certain, but regardless of the moral arguments for it, there isn't much evidence, from US states and other countries that it has any positive impact in acting as a deterrant. Is revenge a good enough reason for it? Does that make the state of any higher standing than the perpetrator of the crime? All difficult questions on this issue.
|
|
|
Post by URRZZZ!!! on Feb 25, 2008 18:03:00 GMT -1
The death penalty just seems pointless for me. Supposing somebody brutally murdered my parents or one of my brothers or sisters. I would be devastated, but what difference would it make to my life if the killer was strung up? I very much doubt it would make me feel any better and it certainly doesn't bring anybody back to life. Truth be told I'd feel for his relatives who had to go through the same experience. Those murdered are gone, nothing can bring them back. I'm guessing the revenge involved would hardly be an effective tonic for making you feel better.
And I haven't got into the argument side of things.
|
|
|
Post by GresleyRam©®™ on Feb 25, 2008 18:29:54 GMT -1
The death penalty just seems pointless for me. Supposing somebody brutally murdered my parents or one of my brothers or sisters. I would be devastated, but what difference would it make to my life if the killer was strung up? I very much doubt it would make me feel any better and it certainly doesn't bring anybody back to life. Truth be told I'd feel for his relatives who had to go through the same experience. Those murdered are gone, nothing can bring them back. I'm guessing the revenge involved would hardly be an effective tonic for making you feel better. And I haven't got into the argument side of things. I would disagree there. The fact that they would be sat in a cell, playing a playstation and living the life of riley while you mourned the death of a loved one would grate me a little! Neko's argument for the most basic form of 'standard of life' has some merits, that or experiment on them for science!
|
|
|
Post by HURLOCK on Feb 25, 2008 20:15:19 GMT -1
I don't know about this as no one dear to me has been the victim of rape or abuse, I know that I would see red and wouldn't be able to control my anger. Which to be honest is something I don't like.
But would I feel a sense of closure seeing this person executed, would it give me closure. Because it wouldn't bring back what I had lost or the they'd inocence stolen.
A far more possitive thing would be to make these c*nts work, by which I mean building roads etc., and if they try to run then kill them. This is one of the few American policies that are right. Prison workers lay motorways out there!
There was uproar with regards to the Bishops comments regarding the implementation of Sharee law, citing it as barbaric (which it is, and completely pro males. Sexist in the extreme) and that it has no place in the western world. how would this be different?
But as I say until in that position I can't pass comment on how I'd feel.
|
|
|
Post by Neko Bazu on Feb 25, 2008 21:49:38 GMT -1
A far more possitive thing would be to make these c*nts work, by which I mean building roads etc., and if they try to run then kill them. This is one of the few American policies that are right. Prison workers lay motorways out there! I agree, that's a fantastic policy, but I feel it should saved for assault, theft etc criminals - the less dangerous ones. If prisoners can abscond from maximum security prisons, then I can't see a chain-gang being much of a hindrance. I'm pretty sure that's the case in the US too - solitary confinement, out for one hour a day in the worst cases, while the lesser guys are taken out to work. Guys who're a danger to the public should have no risks taken.
|
|
|
Post by miz on Feb 25, 2008 22:42:03 GMT -1
I haven't fully read this thread as i can't be bothered but i'm against the death penalty.
You would have to be 100% certain and lets be honest, it's not possible to be 100% certain. Despite what people think, DNA is not foolproof. There have been plenty of wrongful convictions. If the DP was brought back then eventually someone would be wrongfully convicted and put to death.
|
|
|
Post by PASTIE on Feb 26, 2008 0:07:29 GMT -1
NIce one folks, if only to take a random sample on here and prove the Sun as wrong in as unscientific a fashion as their survey probably was in the first place. Yet more affirmation that the folks that go on here are a good, honest and decent bunch and that the minute The Sun newspaper is ever allowed to (again) influence actual policy making then it is time to give up and go home.
It occured to me earlier, as I watched my eldest kissing my newborn on the head, that were anybody to abscond or disappear with either or harm them in any way then I could not possibly be expected to control my responses or reactions. Fortunately, this is why the law and society is there, to defend me from myself, protect me from lowering my standards and act as abitrator before I did something that would make me suffer to live with. As for the punitve nature of prisons, I just do not care if they are perceived as "soft". I have no desire to create hell holes or factories to spawn psychopaths back on the street. Their function is to keep those who are dangerous to people out of harm's way. So long as that is achieved then job done. If rehabilitaion occurs even only in a minority, then that is a bonus and my taxes well spent. Otherwise, out of the way will do.
|
|
|
Post by URRZZZ!!! on Feb 26, 2008 0:12:07 GMT -1
Good words Pastie, just one thing that harsher prisons would act as more of a deterrant, but somebody earlier on pointed out that the death penalty in the US has hardly pushed crime rates down so maybe harsher prisons won't either.
|
|
|
Post by Neko Bazu on Feb 26, 2008 7:47:01 GMT -1
As for the punitve nature of prisons, I just do not care if they are perceived as "soft". I have no desire to create hell holes or factories to spawn psychopaths back on the street. Their function is to keep those who are dangerous to people out of harm's way. So long as that is achieved then job done. If rehabilitaion occurs even only in a minority, then that is a bonus and my taxes well spent. Otherwise, out of the way will do. I personally feel that prisons can both reform and be punitive together. As Hurls said, you can use the workers to build motorways - and surveys among prisoners out in the US indicate that they tend to get a taste for hard work and enjoy it, which spurs them on to finding jobs when they leave ("Hard work and happiness go hand in hand," as the saying goes). If that isn't suitable over here, then fine - offer courses to those who are considered 'safe' for them (i.e. those not likely to attack a teacher with their tools, for instance). Not just basic literacy courses, but ones where they learn a genuine skill that they can use outside. Just make sure the rest of prison isn't so comfy that that route is considered preferable to forking out a couple of hundred quid for a college course. My proposal for minimal facilities is only for the very worst offenders - like he who was recently convicted of killing the prostitutes in Ipswich. He's never going to be released; he's too dangerous - and I think his crimes were horrific enough that he should warrant less favourable treatment than the other inmates (though certainly not outright abuse by any means). Incidentally, does anyone think enough is made of what having a criminal record does to you as far as the impact on the rest of your life goes? I know it precludes you from certain jobs, prevents you being able to visit/move to certain countries etc; is this side of the 'punishment' well-known enough? That could perhaps act as more of a deterrent than the idea of a couple of years inside, for some people.
|
|
|
Post by HURLOCK on Feb 26, 2008 7:57:02 GMT -1
inmates (though certainly not outright abuse by any means). Incidentally, does anyone think enough is made of what having a criminal record does to you as far as the impact on the rest of your life goes? I know it precludes you from certain jobs, prevents you being able to visit/move to certain countries etc; is this side of the 'punishment' well-known enough? That could perhaps act as more of a deterrent than the idea of a couple of years inside, for some people. It should make your life more difficult if you disclose it, so it also effects your ability to get a mortgage, bank account and household insurance but to name a few. However these bodies do not have access the criminal data base. And the criminals know this! So the only time it comes out is if they're caught out and the case goes to trial, where on sentencing your past is disclosed to the court! One part of the system which isn't fair is that when a conviction is spent it's not cleaned off your record, whilst if it's serious crime like rape etc., I don't see the point for burglary etc., He's done his time paid the price etc.,
|
|
|
Post by Neko Bazu on Feb 26, 2008 8:44:07 GMT -1
inmates (though certainly not outright abuse by any means). Incidentally, does anyone think enough is made of what having a criminal record does to you as far as the impact on the rest of your life goes? I know it precludes you from certain jobs, prevents you being able to visit/move to certain countries etc; is this side of the 'punishment' well-known enough? That could perhaps act as more of a deterrent than the idea of a couple of years inside, for some people. It should make your life more difficult if you disclose it, so it also effects your ability to get a mortgage, bank account and household insurance but to name a few. However these bodies do not have access the criminal data base. And the criminals know this! So the only time it comes out is if they're caught out and the case goes to trial, where on sentencing your past is disclosed to the court! One part of the system which isn't fair is that when a conviction is spent it's not cleaned off your record, whilst if it's serious crime like rape etc., I don't see the point for burglary etc., He's done his time paid the price etc., A serious crime should certainly be indelible, I agree. I'm torn between whether a 'lesser' crime should be held on there or not though. On the one hand, allow the organisation in question full knowledge of what they're getting themselves into, and on the other, allow the individual to lead his life now that he's had his time. I think what'd be fair is to keep it on "public" record (i.e. that released when criminal ID checks are required) for a given number of years, in case of re-offending, but after that only mentioning it if the criminal re-offends. For instance: Assume someone is arrested for burglary. He does his time, and for the next, say, three years, that remains on his record if anyone checks it up. After that, though, he isn't required to disclose it to anyone (banks, teaching roles etc) if he hasn't re-offended - we'll assume he's become a law-abiding member of society. If, however, he were to appear in court another two years later, it could be brought up again. A more serious crime would have it on record for longer (4 years for serious assault, life for murder etc), and serial offenders could have it on permanently too. As I said, I agree that offenders should be given the chance to move on, but I also feel that a potential employer etc should be aware of any employee's relevant recent history, to enable them to make a sound judgement. (On the other hand, though, the above policy would be perfect tabloid fodder when someone who committed a burglary 7 years ago gets a job as a teacher and later re-offends, only for it to emerge that an ex-con has been in contact with and corrupting all those children all that time )
|
|
|
Post by GresleyRam©®™ on Feb 26, 2008 8:51:29 GMT -1
Could we stone them.......just every now and again........but not kill them?? ;D
|
|
|
Post by jh1980 on Feb 26, 2008 8:57:39 GMT -1
Could we stone them.......just every now and again........but not kill them?? ;D I was thinking that earlier actually - if someone hurt someone you loved/cared about, you wouldn't want them dead if you were being vengeful - you'd want them to SUFFER! ;D Bearing in mind the point about the state not becoming "as bad or worse than the criminal" though... *shrugs*
|
|
|
Post by GresleyRam©®™ on Feb 26, 2008 8:59:49 GMT -1
Could we stone them.......just every now and again........but not kill them?? ;D I was thinking that earlier actually - if someone hurt someone you loved/cared about, you wouldn't want them dead if you were being vengeful - you'd want them to SUFFER! ;D Bearing in mind the point about the state not becoming "as bad or worse than the criminal" though... *shrugs* OK, fair point......can we fire paintballs at them then?? ;D
|
|
|
Post by Neko Bazu on Feb 26, 2008 9:01:31 GMT -1
Could we stone them.......just every now and again........but not kill them?? ;D I was thinking that earlier actually - if someone hurt someone you loved/cared about, you wouldn't want them dead if you were being vengeful - you'd want them to SUFFER! ;D On that basis, then prison with minimal facilities would be the answer! "Yes, madam, he's still alive, but rest assured he's having a thoroughly awful time of it!"
|
|
|
Post by GresleyRam©®™ on Feb 26, 2008 9:02:10 GMT -1
I was thinking that earlier actually - if someone hurt someone you loved/cared about, you wouldn't want them dead if you were being vengeful - you'd want them to SUFFER! ;D On that basis, then prison with minimal facilities would be the answer! "Yes, madam, he's still alive, but rest assured he's having a thoroughly awful time of it!" That sounds good to me!
|
|
|
Post by jh1980 on Feb 26, 2008 9:04:08 GMT -1
OK, fair point......can we fire paintballs at them then?? ;D *without groinal protection* ;D
|
|
|
Post by GresleyRam©®™ on Feb 26, 2008 9:05:09 GMT -1
OK, fair point......can we fire paintballs at them then?? ;D *without groinal protection* ;D I am seeing a whole new 'eeeeeeeevil' side to you today Jules! ;D
|
|
|
Post by jh1980 on Feb 26, 2008 9:06:45 GMT -1
*without groinal protection* ;D I am seeing a whole new 'eeeeeeeevil' side to you today Jules! ;D *throws away Boy Scout cap!* ;D
|
|
|
Post by GresleyRam©®™ on Feb 26, 2008 9:07:30 GMT -1
I am seeing a whole new 'eeeeeeeevil' side to you today Jules! ;D *throws away Boy Scout cap!* ;D ;D ;D ;D
|
|