Bring back hanging !

[Lady Whistledown]

The great difficulty in dealing with sex offenders is the way they think about what they do.

A guy who breaks into your car to steal the stereo, say, knows it's wrong, but (typically) doesn't care because he wants the money to buy drugs.

A man who sexually abuses children, however, tends to have a completely different mindset- many of them don't consider what they do to be wrong, and just think about it as a normal sexual urge. Some of them actually believe that the children enjoy it, horrific as that sounds to most of us. Look at Gary Glitter: he appears utterly shameless on TV, but that's because he's convinced himself that his desires are normal, and it's ok to have sex with kids. It's the rest of the world that's wrong in his warped mind.

In the same way that an alcoholic has to admit he has a problem before he can start to dry out, you can't "cure" a sexual predator until you can convince him what he's doing is wrong.

Further argument, maybe, for longer sentences? I still wouldn't kill them though (incidentally, I'm sure there was some research from the US that showed a majority of families who'd had a relative murdered felt no sense of closure at all on hearing that the person responsible had been executed).

 

[British Bulldog]

But what if you just intended to give them a bit of a slap, and they ended up dying?

Does that make it any better for the relatives of the victim, who has lost a wife, son, mother etc, just because their loved one died due to the fact that someone was busy texting their mate when they ran someone over, as opposed to having an argument with them in the pub, and then waiting outside with a broken bottle and sticking it through their neck?

A lot of what your stating there comes under manslaughter EP. I'm talking grade 1 intentional murder.

 

[Simster]

Like I said before times have moved on and the discovery of DNA has been a god send in convicting people of crimes, Unless of course DNA is not as reliable as we are lead to believe? Maybe Edna can answer that one?

But your position isn't reliant on Edna's answer. You've already made your mind up.

Besides which, I'm not sure of the relevance. How many innocents can the state execute before we hold our hands up and say that the death penalty is a price not worth paying? That's a question you can answer...

 

[Tony Meolas Loan Spell]

Lock the ****s away.

Life should mean LIFE.

Too many bloody hand wringing do gooders banging on about "civil liberties".

 

[Diatribe]

Lock the ****s away.

Life should mean LIFE.

Too many bloody hand wringing do gooders banging on about "civil liberties".

Are there? I don't think ANYONE would disagree with that in a case such as this.

 

[Simster]

Are there? I don't think ANYONE would disagree with that in a case such as this.

What he said. I can't say I've heard anybody talking about this bloke's civil liberties...

 

[Questions]

The great difficulty in dealing with sex offenders is the way they think about what they do.

A guy who breaks into your car to steal the stereo, say, knows it's wrong, but (typically) doesn't care because he wants the money to buy drugs.

A man who sexually abuses children, however, tends to have a completely different mindset- many of them don't consider what they do to be wrong, and just think about it as a normal sexual urge. Some of them actually believe that the children enjoy it, horrific as that sounds to most of us. Look at Gary Glitter: he appears utterly shameless on TV, but that's because he's convinced himself that his desires are normal, and it's ok to have sex with kids. It's the rest of the world that's wrong in his warped mind.

In the same way that an alcoholic has to admit he has a problem before he can start to dry out, you can't "cure" a sexual predator until you can convince him what he's doing is wrong.

Further argument, maybe, for longer sentences? I still wouldn't kill them though (incidentally, I'm sure there was some research from the US that showed a majority of families who'd had a relative murdered felt no sense of closure at all on hearing that the person responsible had been executed).

Gary Glitter denied all the allegations against him. Thats why he appeared unrepentent and not because he thought paedophilia was acceptable.

 

[El Presidente]

A lot of what your stating there comes under manslaughter EP. I'm talking grade 1 intentional murder.

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.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Like I said before times have moved on and the discovery of DNA has been a god send in convicting people of crimes, Unless of course DNA is not as reliable as we are lead to believe? Maybe Edna can answer that one?

Generally speaking, DNA is of use only if you have that person's profile already on the database.

Otherwise, you have to sit and wait until, by a stroke of luck, they get nicked for something else and a sample is taken.

The issue with that, of course, is that people are increasingly arguing that their profiles shouldn't be on the datebase as they've never been convicted of a crime (everyone who gets arrested gets their DNA recorded), and the more people protest, the more it's likely that profiles will be removed/destroyed, to avoid violating their human rights.

But that, of course, is another argument entirely

(I *think* in terms of reliability, they look for a probability in the region of several million to one when deciding if a profile is reliable in court- i.e. that the chances of the DNA on the victim being someone other than the defendant's is X million to one)

 

[Man of Harveys]

But your position isn't reliant on Edna's answer. You've already made your mind up.

Besides which, I'm not sure of the relevance. How many innocents can the state execute before we hold our hands up and say that the death penalty is a price not worth paying? That's a question you can answer...

All true. Although miscarriages of justice are actually less important to me than my firmly-held belief that any judicial system has no right to decide to end someone's life and to spend money doing so.

 

[British Bulldog]

But your position isn't reliant on Edna's answer. You've already made your mind up.

Besides which, I'm not sure of the relevance. How many innocents can the state execute before we hold our hands up and say that the death penalty is a price not worth paying? That's a question you can answer...

Of course it's relevent, Unless there's corruption within our police force to get convictions then we're lead to believe that DNA is 100% sound evidence. In which case it makes it less likely to wrongly commit a person for grade 1 murder than it would have done the last time we had the death penalty.

 

[Simster]

Of course it's relevent, Unless there's corruption within our police force to get convictions then we're lead to believe that DNA is 100% sound evidence. In which case it makes it less likely to wrongly commit a person for grade 1 murder than it would have done the last time we had the death penalty.

But I take issue with this as an argument.

DNA can categorically put someone at the crime scene without 100% confirming guilt. For example, with DNA it is possible to prove that somebody had intercourse with somebody else. But does that prove murder, or even rape?

In any case, you're still suggesting that the state putting to DEATH some innocent people is a price worth paying to have the death penalty installed. But how many innocent people? As I say, can you answer the question?

 

[algie]

Bring back hanging 100% agreed and supported

 

[El Presidente]

Of course it's relevent, Unless there's corruption within our police force to get convictions then we're lead to believe that DNA is 100% sound evidence. In which case it makes it less likely to wrongly commit a person for grade 1 murder than it would have done the last time we had the death penalty.

1. DNA is evidence, as you rightly say, but it is not proof of a crime.

2. As Edna has already stated, only a fraction of the population has their DNA on file. It is also possible to mis-file details, or destroy them accidentally (as has come to light this week when the government admitted to destroying the vaccination records of tens of thousands of children, and so subsequently does not know who is due to have MMR, tetanus etc injections in many places in the country.)

 

[El Presidente]

Bring back hanging 100% agreed and supported

But for what?

 

[algie]

1st degree murder and serious sex offences on children

 

[algie]

But for what?

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

 

[British Bulldog]

In any case, you're still suggesting that the state putting to DEATH some innocent people is a price worth paying to have the death penalty installed. But how many innocent people? As I say, can you answer the question?

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. 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.

 

[Statto]

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.

 

[Mr Burns]

No. Never ever had a run in with the fella. I'm sure he can confirm that. I just got riled at the false perception that he was saying that the country is overrun by "PC do-gooders", that these same people care more about the murderers than victims, and they are all the same group as anti-death penalty apologists.

You seem very good at telling everyone else what they think and read. You'll notice I gave an apology to BB, and I would say I was significantly less rude than you were in your very first post to me on this thread.

Just one point, because I am getting bored with you now, but how was I significantly ruder to you, when I called you a prick because you called someone a f***ing COCK, because you've mis-interprited was someone said?!?!? You were less rude, are you living in your own little world?

If you've apologised than surely you must think you were wrong in what you said.

Or do you think because you have apologised, that means it was never said. Does that mean I was rude to you for no reason?

People can read on page one, what BB said, and further down the page see your attack on him, and make their own mind up whos being rude to who.