MPs to debate death penalty?

[Stratman]

A question for hangers.

How many people hanged who are later proven to be innocent would you consider acceptable, let's say over a five year period?

 

[mercalot]

I'm in favour of the principal.

However, it must be absolutely water tight, no possibility of wrongful conviction etc. Any doubt whatsoever it automatically becomes a prison sentence.

It also must be for a very defined set of offences.

Don't we technically still have the death penalty for treason in this country?

Repeat offendors spring to mind. House robbery, car theft/crimes and drugs etc. Many have been caught sentenced (cost the country a fortune) and do the same time and again. Dont get me wrong it keeps the judicial system going nicely wasting millions of pounds (i do not think this can help the GDP). There are very bad people that deserve wiping out but the major issue is the cost of the repeat offendors. 5+ offences cannot be wrong. Steal a car drive like a madman hit other cars and get a £60 fine whats that about. Wipe the scum out save time and money.

 

[pipmk]

Hers's our first death penalty candidate...

BBC News - Leeds paedophile Daniel Taylor had 300,000 pictures

There is the danger,already we are extending the crimes that merit death. Despicable as his behaviour is,are you serious that he should be killed.

What next,burglars,jay walkers, but never car drivers who kill because they were driving too fast, no that's too near home, thats an accident even if someone has lost a child,a parent or a loved one.

Don't dare ask me if I am soft on sex offenders as I have personal experience of the damage they can do, far more than you would ever want.

 

[312 Sprinter]

Yes and if it happens (which I very much doubt) I would be up for a career change, Executioner would look good on a business card It would also be nice to see some of the murders, child molesters, rapists, etc.. scum swing for what they have done :bannana:

The question is not whether you're willing to do the hanging, it's whether you're willing to hang as a result of a miscarriage of justice.

 

[davethemus]

nicely wasting millions of pounds (i do not think this can help the GDP)

i think your wrong about that, i'm sure that anywhere that money is spent, no matter what on, increases GDP. If you break your leg and go to the hospital to get it fixed this increases GDP and so on. I'm not 100% on this and i'm sure a more learned person will confirm this.

as for the rest of your rant, it's too stupid to comment on. Maybe fast ford's more you cup of tea

 

[mercalot]

i think your wrong about that, i'm sure that anywhere that money is spent, no matter what on, increases GDP. If you break your leg and go to the hospital to get it fixed this increases GDP and so on. I'm not 100% on this and i'm sure a more learned person will confirm this.

as for the rest of your rant, it's too stupid to comment on. Maybe fast ford's more you cup of tea

I,m not bright i,m not clever but i do understand that increasing the cost or extenting the costs of prison services/ Judicery systems will not help our economic state (sorry i have tried to make it simple now). This will become more clear i am sure quite shortly (maybe that is why the death sentance issue came up?) ------ GDP can be determined in three ways, all of which should, in principle, give the same result. They are the product (or output) approach, the income approach, and the expenditure approach.
The most direct of the three is the product approach, which sums the outputs of every class of enterprise to arrive at the total. The expenditure approach works on the principle that all of the product must be bought by somebody, therefore the value of the total product must be equal to people's total expenditures in buying things. The income approach works on the principle that the incomes of the productive factors ("producers," colloquially) must be equal to the value of their product, and determines GDP by finding the sum of all producers' incomes.
Example: the expenditure method:
GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports) P.S Sorry to say i have never owned a fast Ford, only Volvos, Audis and a Merc not that it makes any difference. I suppose i am lucky that i have no relations or freinds that have issues with the law and have no contact with the dark side. I only see the bad things in criminals and the like.

 

[NOMONEYBUTAMERC]

No doubt about it , hanging should be brought back , and should be mandatory for anyone that cannot spell except for when cribbing a theory ^,anyone who has ever voted for Gordon Brown , former News of The World readers , drivers with 9 or more points , long term unemployed , illegal immigrants ( unless they have plenty of money ) , drivers of foreign cars (except Mercs ) , and anyone that has NEVER broken the speed limit .Lets face it , majority of the population would reinstate the death penalty for "some" cases , but there is not a politician with the balls to do it.

 

[artyman]

You forgot middle lane hoggers

 

[trapperjohn]

but there is not a politician with the balls to do it.

All politicians should be strung up by these anyway.

 

[davethemus]

and should be mandatory for anyone that cannot spell except for when cribbing a theory

lmao

about the hanging issue...i believe in natural justice. the only way i would buy into this is victim retribution, if someone's family member has been murdered then if that person wants to seek revenge and kill the murderer then fair enough. i don't think it should be left to the state to decide whether someone should be put down. the funny thing is that most of the people banging on about bringing the death penalty back wouldn't have the balls to be the hangman them-selves. it's a bit like the pro-war brigade that don't have a single member of there family in the armed forces.

 

[NOMONEYBUTAMERC]

Dave , whilst many of my postings are rather tongue-in-cheek , I do believe that there are many cases when the death penalty is fully justified. Unfortunately the law does not allow retribution by the public at large. There have been, and always will be miscarriage of justice , due in part to misguided/devious police ( i would like to think in the minority), and judges who are totally disembodied from the "real" world. I would really hate for it to be put to the test , but feel certain that if somebody willfully murdered one of my loved ones , I would not rest until they were dead. A lot of people have , (wrongly) stated that the death penalty should be carried out for financial reasons. I think we have to accept that there are people that are clearly evil , and can only atone for their crimes by the ultimate punishment , death.
In many cases , there is clear and irrefutable evidence of guilt , and in these instances I see no reason to keep them alive to bask in "celebrity".Pull the lever ? YES.

 

[pipmk]

I,m not bright i,m not clever but i do understand that increasing the cost or extenting the costs of prison services/ Judicery systems will not help our economic state (sorry i have tried to make it simple now). This will become more clear i am sure quite shortly (maybe that is why the death sentance issue came up?) ------ GDP can be determined in three ways, all of which should, in principle, give the same result. They are the product (or output) approach, the income approach, and the expenditure approach.
The most direct of the three is the product approach, which sums the outputs of every class of enterprise to arrive at the total. The expenditure approach works on the principle that all of the product must be bought by somebody, therefore the value of the total product must be equal to people's total expenditures in buying things. The income approach works on the principle that the incomes of the productive factors ("producers," colloquially) must be equal to the value of their product, and determines GDP by finding the sum of all producers' incomes.
Example: the expenditure method:
GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports) P.S Sorry to say i have never owned a fast Ford, only Volvos, Audis and a Merc not that it makes any difference. I suppose i am lucky that i have no relations or freinds that have issues with the law and have no contact with the dark side. I only see the bad things in criminals and the like.

Again it's not that simple. People employed in the justice system are just that,employed. They spend their wages in local shops, invest and provide employment for others as they do so, having first paid tax on their earnings. As unemployed they revert from producers of economic wealth to mere consumers of taxes, so yes they do contribute to GDP.

 

[Mblinko]

Under no circumstances does any man have the right to to take the life of any other man.

Being an ex- copper and lawyer i've thought often about this, and i can't condone vengeful acts, punishment yes.

Just my 2 penneth on the start of the journey to 30 posts.

 

[davethemus]

Dave , whilst many of my postings are rather tongue-in-cheek , I do believe that there are many cases when the death penalty is fully justified. Unfortunately the law does not allow retribution by the public at large. There have been, and always will be miscarriage of justice , due in part to misguided/devious police ( i would like to think in the minority), and judges who are totally disembodied from the "real" world. I would really hate for it to be put to the test , but feel certain that if somebody willfully murdered one of my loved ones , I would not rest until they were dead. A lot of people have , (wrongly) stated that the death penalty should be carried out for financial reasons. I think we have to accept that there are people that are clearly evil , and can only atone for their crimes by the ultimate punishment , death.
In many cases , there is clear and irrefutable evidence of guilt , and in these instances I see no reason to keep them alive to bask in "celebrity".Pull the lever ? YES.

it's a good point, there are some evil people out there that deserve no sympathy, i think this just highlights the lack of confidence people have in the courts.
there has to be some parity. a man kills someone, he gets life and serves at least 25 years, a women kills her 3 children, she gets 5 years. things like that make me question the justice system.

 

[stevieb15]

i think your wrong about that, i'm sure that anywhere that money is spent, no matter what on, increases GDP. If you break your leg and go to the hospital to get it fixed this increases GDP and so on. I'm not 100% on this and i'm sure a more learned person will confirm this.

as for the rest of your rant, it's too stupid to comment on. Maybe fast ford's more you cup of tea

No it has at best a nuetral effect and given that no organisation operates at 100% efficency probably the opposite effect. All public "services" do is recycle money generated by "prime" tax generation.
So when a spending money they are just spending the same £ for a second time, not generating a new pound.

 

[jepho]

it's a good point, there are some evil people out there that deserve no sympathy, i think this just highlights the lack of confidence people have in the courts.
there has to be some parity. a man kills someone, he gets life and serves at least 25 years, a women kills her 3 children, she gets 5 years. things like that make me question the justice system.

We don't recognise crimes of passion nor do we recognise the use of lethal force when afraid for one's own family or life. The penal code would have all taking of a life seen as an equal act and the punishment is laid down and mandatory.

Disregarding the propensity of the judiciary to occasionally appear to be wayward and out of touch with reality, the judges can and do try to reflect the seriousness of the crime with tariffs. It leaves the judges in the position of trying to assess the crime dispassionately rather than acceding to the wishes of the baying mob or the so-called newspapers. This must be right or else we will not see real justice done but we will have the hot-headed and all too 'summary justice' of the lynch mob.

Women do not normally kill their children and once a woman has done so, it behoves society to examine the facts of the case. Oftentimes there will be mitigating circumstances (not excuses for the tragic misconduct) which demand that a lesser sentence is imposed. My position is that the eye for an eye philosophy, that is rampant in the middle east (these days it is often reduced to a demand for 'blood money') is little more than state approved vengeance and it is wholly repugnant to me.

I have no wish for involved relatives to be deciding on the appropriate punishment for offenders. It would be more rational to seek out punishments that are effective... not just as deterrents (for usually the crime will be committed regardless, where the criminal is so-minded) but for the punishment to be precisely as laid down. Nothing wrong with a life sentence, if only the prisoner was to serve the sentence handed down.

As an aside, all prisoners should be forced to work at something useful which is needed by the community. Not the chain-gang work of the USA but keeping streets clean, emptying bins, decorating and rehabilitating old and derelict property so that it can be put back into the nation's housing stock. Finally, if the inmate refused to do useful work, then maybe they should be placed in the medical health 'volunteer' program and serve some useful purpose to society by advancing medical science through their voluntary submission to testing or treatments.

Prisoners should not expect their incarceration to signal the end of society's interest in them. Society is very well entitled to its pound of flesh (and more) for the three squares a day, lodging and entertainment.

 

[Scott_F]

Use the full weight of the law and maximise prison sentences -not early discharges !-we will need more prisons-rehab does not work.
Agreed no prospect of death penalty

Prison doesn't work either - just look at re-offending rates after release. We have a prison system driven by cost that does little to either deter or re-habilitate offenders.

There isn't the money to build ever more prisons - that's why offenders are released after serving as little as a quarter of their sentences:-

Expenses cheat MP Jim Devine released from prison after four months | Politics | guardian.co.uk

 

[davethemus]

No it has at best a nuetral effect and given that no organisation operates at 100% efficency probably the opposite effect. All public "services" do is recycle money generated by "prime" tax generation.
So when a spending money they are just spending the same £ for a second time, not generating a new pound.

you're right, all money gets recycled over and over again. but what i'm saying is the way that actual GDP is worked out is quite silly because any 'economic' activity goes toward the end figure. there is nothing that detracts from the overall figure.

 

[Nik_Endeavour]

lmao

about the hanging issue...i believe in natural justice. the only way i would buy into this is victim retribution, if someone's family member has been murdered then if that person wants to seek revenge and kill the murderer then fair enough. i don't think it should be left to the state to decide whether someone should be put down. .

I maybe might be misinterpreting your post but that is a dangerous statement. I am from a country where this happens a lot and has happened for centuries. Once vengenance leads to family blood feuds which last and sometimes never stop. Communism put a lid on it for 50 years in Albania but in the early 90s there were 20 something year olds being killed for a murder (also included accidental deaths) that a great great uncle or great grandfather had commited in 1914. The judge orientated interpretation of the law that UK enjoys might not be perfect but alternatives are much worse, horrendous in fact. Crime should be judged by someone with a cool head that is detached from both victim and the accused.

Where does vengenance lead:

Feud - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

With regards to the death penalty it is a very emotional issue and there are arguments for it but death being bigger punishment than all is wrong. 35 years in prison watching out not to drop the soap is way bigger than swinging from a rope.

Just my 2 cents

 

[Scott_F]

35 years in prison watching out not to drop the soap is way bigger than swinging from a rope.

For most murders you would serve a lot less than half that these days.