The Death Penalty - The Sun strikes again.

[Cian]

Ok, can you explain what you found so uncomfortable about them. Not the sense of fear or loss of liberty that you and I might feel, but the actual conditions that you find so awful ?

Heating. Mountjoy in particular was extremely cold - damp cold. The hardware I was working on had to be put in a heated room rather than an air-conditioned one as I'd expect.

Cell sizes were not what I'd consider large enough for a normal sized person to live in. In Cloverhill its 23 hours in for most inmates, in a small box, and considering a lot of them are there due to being discharged from the central mental hospital...

Sanitary conditions were... unsanitary in Mountjoy (slopping out) and not much better apparently in Castlerea - didn't see this, can only go off second hand info from a "user" thereof, poorly maintained, often inoperative.

 

[BigGully]

Heating. Mountjoy in particular was extremely cold - damp cold. The hardware I was working on had to be put in a heated room rather than an air-conditioned one as I'd expect.

Cell sizes were not what I'd consider large enough for a normal sized person to live in. In Cloverhill its 23 hours in for most inmates, in a small box, and considering a lot of them are there due to being discharged from the central mental hospital...

Sanitary conditions were... unsanitary in Mountjoy (slopping out) and not much better apparently in Castlerea - didn't see this, can only go off second hand info from a "user" thereof, poorly maintained, often inoperative.

At Mountjoy ( where is that ? ) what are the majority of inmates convicted of ?

 

[eastlondonseagull]

If these people have no fear of dying - or no fear of an AFTER-LIFE - then the death penalty will NOT be a deterrent. They'll have simply had a fabulous time running around raping, molesting and murdering people and will see no problem in then being put to death. f*** it, we all die, so I might as well die now - that's how I see them thinking.

Rather, we need to make prison a far less cushty experience so that they truly do suffer. Quite how we do that I don't know. But the death penalty will NOT be a deterrent.

.

 

[eastlondonseagull]

Perhaps they need to spend time in prisons like those in the book Shantaram.

.

 

[ATFC Seagull]

I am saying in cases, and there are bucket loads of convicted criminals that have committed only the most heinous of crimes and there is no doubt of their guilt, either by the judicial or the criminals themselves, then why would you not in principle wish them to be condemned to the death penalty.
.

Because

A) I fundamentally oppose the death penalty on religous, social and humane grounds

B) I agree that there are some people in prison who are blatantly guilty, and some who have very unstable convictions. However, there is legally NO way that you can draw a line between them, because they should be 100% proven guilty to be convicted. If you tried to put someone through the system to be executed and their conviction was deemed not sure enough, then they'd be released altogether.

Your point about majority vs unanimous verdicts is an interesting one about our judicial system, but it is to do with the process of trial and how our society labels guilt, not the status of a conviction.

 

[Billy the Fish]

Rather, we need to make prison a far less cushty experience so that they truly do suffer. Quite how we do that I don't know. But the death penalty will NOT be a deterrent.

.

Read 'The Damage Done'. It's about an aussie that gets locked up in Thailand for drug smuggling, that will put anyone off prison.

 

[BigGully]

If these people have no fear of dying - or no fear of an AFTER-LIFE - then the death penalty will NOT be a deterrent. They'll have simply had a fabulous time running around raping, molesting and murdering people and will see no problem in then being put to death. f*** it, we all die, so I might as well die now - that's how I see them thinking.

Rather, we need to make prison a far less cushty experience so that they truly do suffer. Quite how we do that I don't know. But the death penalty will NOT be a deterrent.

.

I agree that the severity of their crimes doesnt show a reasonable thought process and any sentence is unlikely to deter them.

I actually think we might be losing the deterrent argument for lesser crimes, crimes that have a far greater likelyhood of touching us than the ones I advocate the death pennalty for.

But I am happy with a bit of vengeance to be honest, if it would give a crumb of comfort to the parents and loved ones of the perpetraters of such hideous crimes then I will sleep soundly.

 

[alan partridge]

In what is supposed to be a "civilised" society, state-sponsored murder is not something I can go along with. Its not even a deterrant. A miscarriage of justice (and they do happen) would result in an irreversible mistake. All it would do is satisfy the knee-jerk bloodlust of the "string em' up" Sun readers brigade.

abso-bloody-exactly

glad that came up so early and didn't have to read anymore of this thread

 

[BigGully]

Because

A) I fundamentally oppose the death penalty on religous, social and humane grounds

Fine then your stance is clear.

I am a little intrigued where you position your line of opposition to punishment.

Where are you happy to put Robert Oliver and his gang who abducted, tortured, sodimised and mudered Jason Swift the young boy.

It is clear that a death sentence is an untouchable for you, but where do you position yourself in principle beyond that ?

 

[binky]

Clearly an emotive subject.

My opinions for what they are worth.
1) The death penalty is not a deterent, for the many reasons mentioned here.

2) We should not be using the death penalty as vengance, which is what many on here seem to be advocating.

3) Anyone using the idea that we should kill instead of imprison for life because it is cheaper, should hang their heads in shame.

4) Even if some perpetrators of odious crimes are ill, we have not yet worked out how to cure them. So currently we have to section them and/or ensure they are removed from society for life to be sure they present no further danger to society.

But wait... There are advantages to the death penalty.

a) They will NEVER reoffend. either by escaping or by being released.
b) Their "faulty" genes are removed from the gene pool.

Against this is the possibility that some (Anyone got any figures?), proportion of those convicted and executed will prove to be innocent after a period of time.

The question we have to ask ourselves, is this...
From the point of view of the community, or society as a whole, is it worth making those few mistakes, in order to ensure the wellbeing of the greater whole, and prevent the further murders and other crimes that the executed could have gone on to commit if they were to live.
Is it a price woth paying?

 

[ATFC Seagull]

Fine then your stance is clear.

I am a little intrigued where you position your line of opposition to punishment.

Where are you happy to put Robert Oliver and his gang who abducted, tortured, sodimised and mudered Jason Swift the young boy.

It is clear that a death sentence is an untouchable for you, but where do you position yourself in principle beyond that ?

I do actually believe in the chance for rehabilitation and forgiveness, although I also believe in such instances it is likely to be impossible to achieve, and I am not a psychologist so have no idea how such a thing could be assessed.

If found to be mentally ill to the point of diminished responsibility (and I don't really believe that anyone who could do such a thing could not be), then locked up securely (be it prison or hospital), with access to psychological help. If not, then prison for a long sentence. I personally wouldn't say "throw away the key" as an automatic part of the sentence, but it depends on the nature of the crime and whether we could genuinely determine how likely they are to re-offend. But I have no objection in that instance of life meaning life.

 

[Cian]

At Mountjoy ( where is that ? ) what are the majority of inmates convicted of ?

drugs, car theft, GBH generally. Its on the north inner city of Dublin and it is scheduled to be replaced... in about 10 years.

 

[BigGully]

drugs, car theft, GBH generally. Its on the north inner city of Dublin and it is scheduled to be replaced... in about 10 years.

pretty normal prison fayre then ..............

I guess could be argued that there was a victim each crime .....

They dont have it too hard ... is my thought ....... comfy enough.

 

[BigGully]

I do actually believe in the chance for rehabilitation and forgiveness, although I also believe in such instances it is likely to be impossible to achieve, and I am not a psychologist so have no idea how such a thing could be assessed.

If found to be mentally ill to the point of diminished responsibility (and I don't really believe that anyone who could do such a thing could not be), then locked up securely (be it prison or hospital), with access to psychological help. If not, then prison for a long sentence. I personally wouldn't say "throw away the key" as an automatic part of the sentence, but it depends on the nature of the crime and whether we could genuinely determine how likely they are to re-offend. But I have no objection in that instance of life meaning life.

I agree in part, fair comment.

 

[London Calling]

It disturbs me how often this debate comes up. In a democracy and civil society, the idea of the death penalty is wrong. State sponsored murder is not what people should want from their government. People like Ian Huntley will never be released so they are no threat anyway.

I can understand that the victim's family may want someone to die for vengeance but do we want to base our laws on that. I am glad that there is never a real political debate about the death penalty as it shows that MPs have more sense than the tabloid press and general public.

Whatever your system you will always get wrongful convictions. Are people in favour of the death penalty happy to murder innocent people in their need for revenge?

In some respects, such opionions aren't that far away from stoning, or setting fire to the criminal.

 

[Cian]

pretty normal prison fayre then ..............

I guess could be argued that there was a victim each crime .....

They dont have it too hard ... is my thought ....... comfy enough.

I'm not disagreeing with the conditions. I'm disagreeing with the vaguely surreal assertion that they're "comfy".

 

[London Calling]

My mate is an ex Prison warden, he did Armley in Leeds, Wandsworth and Wormwood Scrubs.

He is not the most liberal of people, he now works with the Leeds Police "heavies" he certainly would not recommend anyone normal, ordinary or nice in going in there.

And Wandsworth was a total disgrace.

LC

 

[Gully]

Well I was forthright in my answer to you because you asked me.

I accept your stance, but I have stated why I would want the Robert Oliver's of the world to be killed, I need to ask why you would wish him not to sentenced to death ?

Because I am opposed to the death penalty in any circumstance, as stated in my post, I think that is a pretty straightforward explaination of my opinion on this matter.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

I'm all for it for certain crimes.

It has to be reserved for the most hideous of crimes, and not any old murder

Hmmm, so who gets to decide which crimes are heinous enough to warrant the execution of the offender then? And where are we drawing the line?

People who murder children, perhaps? So, an 18 year old who stabs a 17 year old in a fight gets executed, while a bloke in his 30s who batters his wife to death and buries her body in the garden survives?

People who kill the old and vulnerable? What about someone who burgles an 85 year old lady's house and causes her fatal injuries, is that worse than doing the same to someone who's (say) 65, if we drew the line there?

Don't know about anybody else, but I'm not remotely comfortable with the idea of somehow categorising the level of someone's loss. BigGully: I'm quite clear where you're coming from on this point and respect your right to hold your view on capital punishment, but I have some difficulty in deciding who's life holds more value.

Everyone is somebody's son or daughter when it comes down to it, and in the case of several of those girls from Ipswich, their families didn't even know they were on the game. Who are we to judge them, as we have no idea what circumstances befell them to push the women in that direction. If I had to break the news to the mother of one of them that their daughter had been raped, stabbed and dumped in a stream, I don't imagine I'd be thinking "Cheer up love, at least she wasn't a kid, she had a good innings, eh?"

You cannot even begin to quantify someone's loss when a family member has been killed, and I think to do so by allowing that to impact on the sentence would be insulting. You can't tell a grieving family that their son's life was considered less of a crime than someone else's.

 

[BigGully]

Hmmm, so who gets to decide which crimes are heinous enough to warrant the execution of the offender then? And where are we drawing the line?

People who murder children, perhaps? So, an 18 year old who stabs a 17 year old in a fight gets executed, while a bloke in his 30s who batters his wife to death and buries her body in the garden survives?

People who kill the old and vulnerable? What about someone who burgles an 85 year old lady's house and causes her fatal injuries, is that worse than doing the same to someone who's (say) 65, if we drew the line there?

Don't know about anybody else, but I'm not remotely comfortable with the idea of somehow categorising the level of someone's loss. BigGully: I'm quite clear where you're coming from on this point and respect your right to hold your view on capital punishment, but I have some difficulty in deciding who's life holds more value.

Everyone is somebody's son or daughter when it comes down to it, and in the case of several of those girls from Ipswich, their families didn't even know they were on the game. Who are we to judge them, as we have no idea what circumstances befell them to push the women in that direction. If I had to break the news to the mother of one of them that their daughter had been raped, stabbed and dumped in a stream, I don't imagine I'd be thinking "Cheer up love, at least she wasn't a kid, she had a good innings, eh?"

You cannot even begin to quantify someone's loss when a family member has been killed, and I think to do so by allowing that to impact on the sentence would be insulting. You can't tell a grieving family that their son's life was considered less of a crime than someone else's.

I have used specific examples of some men that have committed the most heinous of crimes against children.

The only reason is to personalise the debate to actually what happens when a person commits such a crime.

We can nearly become sanitised by the words murder, pardophilia etc. and I felt it reasonable to actually type out the events of such a crime.

I have never said that in some way its only these that might 'deserve' the full extent of the death penalty. I agree the age of the victim in any extreme callous event is worthy of all the weight and support of the law.

Crimes are already fully categorised, however I have no doubt that most people could at least agree on the categorisation, thats the easy bit, but as born out on here maybe not the punishment.