Death penalty

[Guest77]

I'm sure there would be Mike, just like there would be millions of people who agree with me regarding the death penalty

of course, thats why we have discussions, differing views are healthy for our democracy.

 

[rapparee]

Well I don't think you are really listening either, you seem to be talking about the Irish troubles, I am reffering to murders caught without doubt on film for example like the lee rigby murderers,I was not really reffering to the IRA or Unionist murderers, if you really want to discuss Irish issues and need to get something off your chest because I feel you have something on your mind regarding it then start another thread about it and I will be happy to join in about that subject.

Haha did you read my post at all. I said i didn't want to come across as talking solely about that, i studied it at school and find it easy to give examples from that conflict, nothing on my chest. As for lee rigbys two killers they should have maximum security prison for life. The state any state british/irish/eu/usa should be morally superior to killers.

 

[Guest77]

Haha did you read my post at all. I said i didn't want to come across as talk solely about that, i studied it at school and find it easy to give examples from that conflict, nothing on my chest. As for lee rigbys too killers they should have maximum security prison for life. The state any state british/irish/eu/usa should be morally superior to killers.

Hope so mate, knowing this country they will be out in 15 years.

 

[trev]

No.
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&r...M6wYeo_9Zg6Jp662A&sig2=p16J6MXWU_XraPIAt7eKUg

 

[Des 56]

As for lee rigbys too killers they should have maximum security prison for life.


Hope so mate, knowing this country they will be out in 15 years.


No.

I make that 22 + 45 = 67years

Not quite then

That is unless he cops a fatal sucker punch first
Or perhaps the parole permanent holiday committee release him sooner with a new identity,free food and accommodation and anonymity lest some morally righteous person does what the state should have done

My bet is that guy will be free to enjoy his fifties,even maybe free in his forties,I for one would not be surprised

 

[trev]

If you take a look at whole life terms and (for example) minimum sentences handed down from a judge then you'll see they are rarely reduced on any grounds.
I think it's a fairly safe bet that one (possibly both of course) will die in prison and the other will be fairly elderly when released

 

[rapparee]

I am cringing at my misuse of too/two

 

[Andy78]

I won't, and can't, ever support a death penalty.
If you believe strongly that murderers are wrong then you must believe it is wrong for a human to take human life. If these are your beliefs then how can you support a death penalty ?
Morals are not chosen for the convenience of a situation or for the good of the masses, morals are ideals. Justice however is a different concept and one that is far removed from moral ideal.

 

[Des 56]

I don't support the death penalty,not because I think it is morally wrong to take the life of a murderer/terrorist, but its because of the remote possibility that the person who's life is taken is innocent

So in one sense I believe in a life for a life,but because of human failings in convictions,my belief is not safe to enforce

 

[Engineer54]

I'm not religious either but i respect others religious beliefs. However, i don't respect the beliefs of those that think it's perfectly acceptable to intentionally kill and maim as many people as they possibly can through terrorist acts in the name of their religion...

As has been stated, if and when a person has been caught in the act, or there is overwhelming evidence, via video footage etc, i'd have no hesitation whatsoever in signing a death warrant, or even pulling the trigger myself.

I can't see any point in keeping such an individual locked up for the rest of their life at horrendous costs, that can total millions (if you believe published government figures) to the taxpayer!! A simple bullet to the back of the head and the problems over, cleanly and cheaply... I don't give a ---- if some think he's a martyr, he'll be dead and gone, and won't be a potential problem within the prison system....end of!!

 

[plugsandsparks]

Top 10 countries who kill their citizens: AKA Death Penalty
1. China
2. North Korea
3. Iran
4. Iraq
5. Saudia Arabia
6. USA
7. Somalia
8. Sudan
9. Yemen
10. Japan

USA and Japan do stand out as not exactly "stuck in the middle ages" - but makes you think about what regimes make up capital punishment as a form of "deterrent" - Do we really want to join that motley crew. ?

 

[Engineer54]

I'm not saying the death penalty is used as a deterrent, it maybe for some, but most civilian criminal murders are committed on the spur of the moment, i'm not saying that every murderer should be executed either, long prison sentences is a perfectly acceptable judgement. But when it comes to fanatical scum that go out to intentionally kill as many innocent civilians as they possible can in the name of their religion or cause, then i can't see a single problem with permanently getting rid of them....

Oh and most of the countries stated above are Islamic countries and one governed by a complete nutter.... Japan actually has one of the lowest crime rates in the world!! China i could go into a lot more depth, but just remember it has the largest population of any country or even multiple countries, so not unexpectedly, is number one in your motley crew chart!!...

 

[Engineer54]

As for lee rigbys too killers they should have maximum security prison for life.


Hope so mate, knowing this country they will be out in 15 years.


No.

I make that 22 + 45 = 67years

Not quite then

That is unless he cops a fatal sucker punch first
Or perhaps the parole permanent holiday committee release him sooner with a new identity,free food and accommodation and anonymity lest some morally righteous person does what the state should have done

My bet is that guy will be free to enjoy his fifties,even maybe free in his forties,I for one would not be surprised

I don't really know how those two above figures were handed down, but generally in the UK prison terms are run concurrently so it would actually be the longest term handed down, eg 45 years.... Now if parole (or whatever they call it in the UK these days) is then considered, it will normally kick in after 2/3rds of the sentence served... I can't really see this happening in this case, before that term has been served, the Home Secretary will intervene and remove any chance of parole and can actually increase term to ''Whole Life''.

Now that's something i completely disagree with, the Home Secretary should have no say whatsoever over a high court Judges Sentence, he is a political term elected cabinet minister that is only around for a limited period of time, and is nothing to do with the JUDICIARY which should remain completely autonomous and above political aspirations, that works and delivers judgements solely within the letter of the laws of the land...
I have nothing against the HS officially asking the judiciary for a sentence review, but his involvement on making lawful decisions be limited to just that, ...referring cases to the judiciary.

 

[Slowhand]

I wonder how any of us would feel if someone was killed as a result of work we'd done believing we knew all the info ( but didn't ) about something we were installing or had a preconceived notion that we knew it all anyway and didn't need to read the manufacturers instructions or not test something because it's a forgone conclusion.
An innocent life gone because we were so clever we knew it all.
When someone is dead its too late to put things right.
I wouldn't be able to live with that......

Now imagine yourself on a jury where the charge is murder and capital punishment exists.

 

[Des 56]

I don't really know how those two above figures were handed down,but generally in the UK prison terms are run concurrently so it would actually be the longest term handed down, eg 45 years.... Now if parole (or whatever they call it in the UK these days) is then considered, it will normally kick in after 2/3rds of the sentence served... I can't really see this happening in this case, before that term has been served, the Home Secretary will intervene and remove any chance of parole and can actually increase term to ''Whole Life''.
Now that's something i completely disagree with, the Home Secretary should have no say whatsoever over a high court Judges Sentence, he is a political term elected cabinet minister that is only around for a limited period of time, and is nothing to do with the JUDICIARY which should remain completely autonomous and above political aspirations, that works and delivers judgements solely within the letter of the laws of the land...
I have nothing against the HS officially asking the judiciary for a sentence review, but his involvement on making lawful decisions be limited to just that, ...referring cases to the judiciary.

Sorry for not being clear
They are the sentence as imposed added to the age of the scum

My point being in his case there may be no whole life sentence
He may be free to have another go in his 60s at worst,before that it will be the usual case of releasing a prisoner on parole years before full sentence is served
He could be looking forward to many years wandering free

I completely agree with the comment about a politician having no role in sentence review other than referal


Whilst mentioning parole and going back to my post about making prison horrendous
Parole should be consideration of behaviour after serving the full term

It should be a case of "be a good boy and the sentence may not be increased for bad behaviour"
"Be a naughty boy" and the sentence is increased to suit