Bring back hanging !

[El Presidente]

1st degree murder and serious sex offences on children

OK, justify not hanging for other types of murder and serious sex offences on adults.

Does that mean that a sex offence on someone who is 15 years and 364 days old warrants hanging, and the same offence on a person one day older does not?

 

[Southover Street Seagull]

Whether you agree with Capital Punishment or not, it is never going to come back into this country unless we leave the EU.
As it is not only covered by laws made in this country but laws made in Europe too.

 

[El Presidente]

Why do you think does idiot politicians
refuse to allow a referendum on it for the general public?

Because there are more idiot members of the public than idiot politicians.

 

[Man of Harveys]

Im sure someone will correct me if im wrong but Dosent the death penalty still technically exist in this country? For exeptional crimes? Technically you could still be hung for treason(although highley unlikely) . I know its slightly off topic but it was just a thought.

No, not any more: "The last remaining provisions for the death penalty under military jurisdiction (including in wartime) were removed when the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force on 9 November 1998. When the 6th Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights was ratified on 20 May 1999 all provisions for the death penalty in peacetime were prohibited (although they had all been abolished by this time). The UK later (October 10, 2003) acceded to the 13th Protocol, which prohibits the death penalty under all circumstances."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_Kingdom

 

[Simster]

I'm not suggesting the state will put to death innocent people and an innocent person being put to death is not acceptable, As I stated in a previous post they have to be proved guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

Eh? You're either guilty of a crime or you're not. What do you mean "beyond all reasonable doubt"? You have to be absolutely sure before you put someone away for 50 years. FFS, I hope you're never put on a jury!

What you are saying is that there are different levels of guilt, which is complete bollocks.

Now on the subject of unanswered questions Simster i'm still waiting for your answers on how you would get inside these peoples minds and what method you would use for extracting the information you require as to why they commit these crimes.

This is the third time I've said it, but I CAN'T because I'm not qualified to do so. But I do believe there are qualified people who can. And I also think it worth trying.

 

[Mr Burns]

I am not a psychologist, or a social worker, or a police officer, so my knowledge is limited to personal experience (which some of you may remember was not very pleasant), an academic background, and little more.

1. It could turn out that child abusers have a genetic disposition to do what they do. If so, that gene could be identified, screened, and perhaps dealt with through medication.

Pedophiles are attracted to children, the same as a man is to a women, or gays are to gays, or lesbians to lesbians. You can't test someone for pedophilpa any more than you can test someone to see if they are gay.

2. It could be that their behaviour is due to social background, upbringing etc. If so, then government/society as a whole should aim to target those conditions. This will reduce the incidence of such behaviour in the future.

Lovely idea, but in the real world is never going to happen is it.

3. Everything has a cause, these acts do not happen by random. If it is due to exposure to pornography, alcohol, computer games, then the cause can be addressed, if we all decide that it is a price worth paying. If, for example, it was found that 90% of child abusers had consumed alcohol in the 2 hours before carrying out their acts, would it justify a 100% ban on alcohol in the UK?

But then do we banned drinking to stop thousands being killed/injured by drink drivers.

 

[British Bulldog]

This is the third time I've said it, but I CAN'T because I'm not qualified to do so.

So in reality your debating something you hav'nt got a clue about yeah?

 

[Mr Burns]

So in reality your debating something you hav'nt got a clue about yeah?

I wondered when someone was going to point that out! I'm still waiting to hear how hes going to use information he can get out of child killers?

 

[Man of Harveys]

So in reality your debating something you hav'nt got a clue about yeah?

Unlike the rest of us experts, of course (apart from Edna, who really is)...you don't need to understand nuclear physics to discuss whether launching an atom bomb towards someone is right or wrong.

 

[algie]

OK, justify not hanging for other types of murder and serious sex offences on adults.

Does that mean that a sex offence on someone who is 15 years and 364 days old warrants hanging, and the same offence on a person one day older does not?

Serious sex attacks on under 16 year olds should be hanged.Above that age life in prison.Anyone who sets out to take someones life should be hanged.Manslaughter should be no less then 10 years and they do the full term

 

[Mr Burns]

Unlike the rest of us experts, of course (apart from Edna, who really is)...you don't need to understand nuclear physics to discuss whether launching an atom bomb towards someone is right or wrong.

But when he says we should find out why people do this, surely there must be a vaild use to it.

 

[Simster]

So in reality your debating something you hav'nt got a clue about yeah?

No. I believe we can as a society bring about conditions that reduce the likelihood of child murderers or any other crime. The reason behind this is because there are societies where crime is virtually unheard of, so it must be possible. However, all I am saying is that I am not one of the skilled, qualified people to help bring this about - therefore I can't tell you how to get into the minds of these people.

Back to your point of view. We've established that you stand for the death penalty only where guilt is beyond reasonable doubt. I've put it to you that nobody should be convicted without it already being beyond reasonable doubt. So are you suggesting there are different levels of guilt? Are you suggesting that people should be locked away for 50 years without it already being beyond reasonable doubt?

 

[Southover Street Seagull]

So in reality your debating something you hav'nt got a clue about yeah?

Jus like all of us on here really, whether your pro or against Capital Punishment. Unless you have worked in a justice system that promotes Capital Punishment then you are probably not going to know all the facts are you?
The one thing we can debate over here in the UK is about sex offenders as we have them, and we have people here in this country who deal with them.
Some people on this board sound like they know a thing or two about the criminal justice system here too as it seems they work in it, perhaps only they can have the debate because they know what goes on.

 

[El Presidente]

I am not a psychologist, or a social worker, or a police officer, so my knowledge is limited to personal experience (which some of you may remember was not very pleasant), an academic background, and little more.

1. It could turn out that child abusers have a genetic disposition to do what they do. If so, that gene could be identified, screened, and perhaps dealt with through medication.

Pedophiles are attracted to children, the same as a man is to a women, or gays are to gays, or lesbians to lesbians. You can't test someone for pedophilpa any more than you can test someone to see if they are gay.

2. It could be that their behaviour is due to social background, upbringing etc. If so, then government/society as a whole should aim to target those conditions. This will reduce the incidence of such behaviour in the future.

Lovely idea, but in the real world is never going to happen is it.

3. Everything has a cause, these acts do not happen by random. If it is due to exposure to pornography, alcohol, computer games, then the cause can be addressed, if we all decide that it is a price worth paying. If, for example, it was found that 90% of child abusers had consumed alcohol in the 2 hours before carrying out their acts, would it justify a 100% ban on alcohol in the UK?

But then do we banned drinking to stop thousands being killed/injured by drink drivers.

1. What evidence do you have for this?

2. What do you mean the real world? If the cause is social deprivation, then why not try to reduce poverty, it can be done.

3. Why not? Far more people will be caused by drink drivers this year than by child molesters or dangerous dogs etc, so if your aim is to reduce unlawful killing, then the answer should be yes.

 

[Simster]

I wondered when someone was going to point that out! I'm still waiting to hear how hes going to use information he can get out of child killers?

But you two haven't got a clue either, yet seem able to form an opinion on the subject - albeit the opposite one...

 

[Mr Burns]

But why is there a difference? As I have said before, it does not reduce the distress caused by the victims' family.

If someone killed my daughter in a car as opposed to stabbing her it would not diminish the pain, so surely the sentence should be the same.

Do you really believe what have just written there.

 

[Statto]

But you two haven't got a clue either, yet seem able to form an opinion on the subject - albeit the opposite one...

True. Double ownage there.

 

[algie]

Labours policy being tough on crime hasn't worked along with many other serious matters EP.It's just a matter of time now before they are booted out at the next election

 

[El Presidente]

Serious sex attacks on under 16 year olds should be hanged.Above that age life in prison.Anyone who sets out to take someones life should be hanged.Manslaughter should be no less then 10 years and they do the full term

1. Why 16 years? I do not see what difference age has to do with it. I have read about horrific sexual attacks on OAP's too, why are these less monstrous?

2. How do you distinguish between someone setting out to take someone's life, and someone who just means to smack them about a bit, and ends up killing them. Is it possible t

3. Why should someone who drives a car when drunk or texting and kills someon get away with just 10 years, they have taken away someone's life, in exactly the same way as someone with a rope, gun or knife?

 

[Mr Burns]

1. What evidence do you have for this? AS Edna says, people who abuse children dont think they are doing wrong. Its natural to them.

2. What do you mean the real world? If the cause is social deprivation, then why not try to reduce poverty, it can be done.AS I said in the real world its never gonna happen. Reduce poverty. Lovely, aint gonna happen though it is, as much as we'd all love to happen.

3. Why not? Far more people will be caused by drink drivers this year than by child molesters or dangerous dogs etc, so if your aim is to reduce unlawful killing, then the answer should be yes.
So you would ban drinking to stop drink drivers killing?
THen what, ban cars to stop accidents. More probably die in non-drink related accidents than drink related accidents. So why not ban cars.

Then What Ban all fatty food to stop people dieing of heart attacks?

Then we could ban people from going up ladders in case they fall off and die.

Maybe after that we could make it law everyone has to kill themseleves at the age of 70 to stop people dying of old age?