ICTJohnboy Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Capital punishment is wrong, has always been wrong and will always be wrong. We are not savages. I do, however, believe in the idea of full life term sentences for certain crimes. Though they aren't used all that often in the UK, we do have them. No, they're not are they? And how many, on being released long before they have served anything like what they were sentenced to, have then gone on to re-offend? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweet Pete Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 No, they're not are they? And how many, on being released long before they have served anything like what they were sentenced to, have then gone on to re-offend? I've absolutely no idea. As I say, I'm in favour of whole of life terms, but only in certain cases, rather than using the US method of attaching life terms to certain crimes rather than utilising them on a case-by-case basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Capital punishment is wrong, has always been wrong and will always be wrong. We are not savages. I do, however, believe in the idea of full life term sentences for certain crimes. Though they aren't used all that often in the UK, we do have them. The argument against it is normally the "what if we hang an innocent man". That wouldn't have happened in this case though although there's always the chance that if his neck was on the line he would have taken this to a jury trial and chanced his arm. It's unlikely he could have talked his way out of this considering he filmed a lot of what he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweet Pete Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 The argument against it is normally the "what if we hang an innocent man". That wouldn't have happened in this case though although there's always the chance that if his neck was on the line he would have taken this to a jury trial and chanced his arm. It's unlikely he could have talked his way out of this considering he filmed a lot of what he did. Whilst the potential for erroneous conviction is one aspect of my opposition to capital punishment, it is not the only one. It's not as simple as saying we can't condone capital punishment in case we kill the wrong person, there's also the moral objection of having the collective blood on our hands of condoning and enforcing state sponsored killings. Whether the person is guilty is only part of the issue, another large part of it is that I cannot conscience being collectively responsible for deciding whether someone lives or dies. A person's right to life is the single most basic Human Right that we all share, it's not up to society to take that right away from them, even if they themselves have taken someone else's life from them. To kill people in revenge for their crimes is dark age barbarism and the fact that it still goes on in the so called developed world is a sick joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweet Pete Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 The "hang them" brigade who spout off about capital punishment being just and fitting would be the first ones campaigning against it outside number 10 when it's their son who's in the dock for killing someone. Knee-jerk tea break reactionaries, the lot of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTJohnboy Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 another large part of it is that I cannot conscience being collectively responsible for deciding whether someone lives or dies. A person's right to life is the single most basic Human Right that we all share, it's not up to society to take that right away from them, even if they themselves have taken someone else's life from them. To kill people in revenge for their crimes is dark age barbarism and the fact that it still goes on in the so called developed world is a sick joke. If your so concerned about human rights, how would you deal with these cases when those guilty of barbaric crimes have made a request to be put to death? Should they be granted that right? Like this guy for instance. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/norway-mass-killer-anders-behring-breivik-wants-death-penalty-or-acquittal/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Whilst the potential for erroneous conviction is one aspect of my opposition to capital punishment, it is not the only one. It's not as simple as saying we can't condone capital punishment in case we kill the wrong person, there's also the moral objection of having the collective blood on our hands of condoning and enforcing state sponsored killings. Whether the person is guilty is only part of the issue, another large part of it is that I cannot conscience being collectively responsible for deciding whether someone lives or dies. A person's right to life is the single most basic Human Right that we all share, it's not up to society to take that right away from them, even if they themselves have taken someone else's life from them. To kill people in revenge for their crimes is dark age barbarism and the fact that it still goes on in the so called developed world is a sick joke. What about illegal wars? How many politicians have been put before a jury for this? State sponsored killings happen irrespective of the existance of capital punishment. Or maybe it's OK as long as the victims are not nationals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Whilst the potential for erroneous conviction is one aspect of my opposition to capital punishment, it is not the only one. It's not as simple as saying we can't condone capital punishment in case we kill the wrong person, there's also the moral objection of having the collective blood on our hands of condoning and enforcing state sponsored killings. Whether the person is guilty is only part of the issue, another large part of it is that I cannot conscience being collectively responsible for deciding whether someone lives or dies. A person's right to life is the single most basic Human Right that we all share, it's not up to society to take that right away from them, even if they themselves have taken someone else's life from them. To kill people in revenge for their crimes is dark age barbarism and the fact that it still goes on in the so called developed world is a sick joke. A lgth of rope and a couple of hundred quid to the hangman is cheaper than 30 years of keeping someone in a prison cell, guarding him feeding him, caring for him when he gets sick. Pychiatrically assessing him etc etc. Whats the point in keeping this guy aound now? He admitted that he rapes babies. What right does society have to take away his liberty in that case in revenge for his crimes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweet Pete Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 If your so concerned about human rights, how would you deal with these cases when those guilty of barbaric crimes have made a request to be put to death? Should they be granted that right? Like this guy for instance. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/norway-mass-killer-anders-behring-breivik-wants-death-penalty-or-acquittal/ You make being concerned about Human Rights sound like a jibe. That's the oddest attempt at needling I've ever encountered. On your question, I would refuse their request for the right to die. I don't believe in letting them out of their punishment and would rather they remained incarcerated. What about illegal wars? How many politicians have been put before a jury for this? State sponsored killings happen irrespective of the existance of capital punishment. Or maybe it's OK as long as the victims are not nationals. You're posing this question to me as if it's news, as if it's never occurred to me that the UK has an horrendous record of tacit Human Rights abuses and illegal, immoral invasions. Were you expecting me to defend that position? I suspect you merely wanted to try and get a jab in about it being "OK as long as they're not British". Let me assure you that I object to the UK's foreign abuses just as much as I do to the idea of capital punishment. A lgth of rope and a couple of hundred quid to the hangman is cheaper than 30 years of keeping someone in a prison cell, guarding him feeding him, caring for him when he gets sick. Pychiatrically assessing him etc etc. Whats the point in keeping this guy aound now? He admitted that he rapes babies. What right does society have to take away his liberty in that case in revenge for his crimes? Of course it's cheaper and of course it's quicker to kill him and chuck his corpse away, but economics shouldn't be a factor in the termination of human life. Incarceration is punishment for his crimes, not revenge. Capital punishment is a misnomer as it is not a punishment at all, it's retribution, which is not the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Co.Down Hibee Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Whilst the potential for erroneous conviction is one aspect of my opposition to capital punishment, it is not the only one. It's not as simple as saying we can't condone capital punishment in case we kill the wrong person, there's also the moral objection of having the collective blood on our hands of condoning and enforcing state sponsored killings. Whether the person is guilty is only part of the issue, another large part of it is that I cannot conscience being collectively responsible for deciding whether someone lives or dies. A person's right to life is the single most basic Human Right that we all share, it's not up to society to take that right away from them, even if they themselves have taken someone else's life from them. To kill people in revenge for their crimes is dark age barbarism and the fact that it still goes on in the so called developed world is a sick joke. So what excactly do you believe prison is for? If you think prison is about reflection and reforming of character then in the case of Watkins and others then I personally believe their isn't any way that he could come back into society and lead a normal life, nobody can come back from some crimes and therefore prison really is pointless. If you believe that prison is about punishment and to act as a deterrent then surely the crimes he has committed are about a depraved and twisted lust that he craved for and would the thought of a prison sentence actually have put him off doing it? Doubtful. The death penalty has many cons to it and of course with the miscarriages of justice people will highlight it may have sent the wrong man to his death etc.. but in the case of Watkins is there any point in keeping a guy alive who no matter when he's released would never be able to go back into society anyway, as for the basic human right being the right to life i would argue that he has given up that right . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweet Pete Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 So what excactly do you believe prison is for? If you think prison is about reflection and reforming of character then in the case of Watkins and others then I personally believe their isn't any way that he could come back into society and lead a normal life, nobody can come back from some crimes and therefore prison really is pointless. If you believe that prison is about punishment and to act as a deterrent then surely the crimes he has committed are about a depraved and twisted lust that he craved for and would the thought of a prison sentence actually have put him off doing it? Doubtful. The death penalty has many cons to it and of course with the miscarriages of justice people will highlight it may have sent the wrong man to his death etc.. but in the case of Watkins is there any point in keeping a guy alive who no matter when he's released would never be able to go back into society anyway, as for the basic human right being the right to life i would argue that he has given up that right . I've said specifically, more than once, that I believe in whole of life terms. If I believed that prison was a tool for reforming criminals then how could I possibly encourage whole of life terms? Try reading everything rather than just skimming bits in your haste to criticise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 You make being concerned about Human Rights sound like a jibe. That's the oddest attempt at needling I've ever encountered. On your question, I would refuse their request for the right to die. I don't believe in letting them out of their punishment and would rather they remained incarcerated. You're posing this question to me as if it's news, as if it's never occurred to me that the UK has an horrendous record of tacit Human Rights abuses and illegal, immoral invasions. Were you expecting me to defend that position? I suspect you merely wanted to try and get a jab in about it being "OK as long as they're not British". Let me assure you that I object to the UK's foreign abuses just as much as I do to the idea of capital punishment. Of course it's cheaper and of course it's quicker to kill him and chuck his corpse away, but economics shouldn't be a factor in the termination of human life. Incarceration is punishment for his crimes, not revenge. Capital punishment is a misnomer as it is not a punishment at all, it's retribution, which is not the same thing. I'd say it was a bit of a punishment for his crime. We are collectively paying for him to live his life apart from us. The majority of people don't want to do that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Co.Down Hibee Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 I've said specifically, more than once, that I believe in whole of life terms. If I believed that prison was a tool for reforming criminals then how could I possibly encourage whole of life terms? Try reading everything rather than just skimming bits in your haste to criticise. but surely then useing prison for whole sentences wouldn't have worked for Watkins either as a deterrent wouldn't have put him off because this was due to a depraved lust as opposed to say a bank robber etc.. oh and stop being so touchy, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweet Pete Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 but surely then useing prison for whole sentences wouldn't have worked for Watkins either as a deterrent wouldn't have put him off because this was due to a depraved lust as opposed to say a bank robber etc.. oh and stop being so touchy, Would capital punishment work as a deterrent to people with depraved attitudes such as Watkins? I can't imagine that there's any evidence anywhere to support that, unless someone somewhere has carried out a poll where a bunch of people have answered "Yes, I would have been a paedophile, but the threat of the hangman's noose means I just don't act on it and masturbate to my sick thoughts instead". Your endorsement of capital punishment for this crime is based on outrage at the nature of the crime (completely understandably), but to dress it up as finding a deterrent does not make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Brightside Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 I agree with pretty much everything you've said, Pete. Things like money should be an irrelevance, the death penalty could also be something that encourages more depraved crimes, because after the perpetrator is caught they know it will be over in a few months time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bullywee Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 but surely then useing prison for whole sentences wouldn't have worked for Watkins either as a deterrent wouldn't have put him off because this was due to a depraved lust as opposed to say a bank robber etc.. oh and stop being so touchy, I think you should work on your own whole sentences first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LinkinFighter Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Nothing barbaric about it people like him should be executed, they're animals who can never be trusted .I don't think the state should be taking anyone's life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Co.Down Hibee Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Would capital punishment work as a deterrent to people with depraved attitudes such as Watkins? I can't imagine that there's any evidence anywhere to support that, unless someone somewhere has carried out a poll where a bunch of people have answered "Yes, I would have been a paedophile, but the threat of the hangman's noose means I just don't act on it and masturbate to my sick thoughts instead". Your endorsement of capital punishment for this crime is based on outrage at the nature of the crime (completely understandably), but to dress it up as finding a deterrent does not make sense. Capital punishment isn't a deterrent and I never said it was ,however keeping somebody in prison for a crime they would have commited anyway no matter what the punishment is a complete waste of time and resources,what is the point in keeping Watkins in prison for the rest of his natural life ? This isn't about revenge it is about the nature of his crimes ,the guy is an evil sicko, wether it's his fault he is this way is another arguement but keeping him locked away for 50 years or whatever solves nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LinkinFighter Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Capital punishment isn't a deterrent and I never said it was ,however keeping somebody in prison for a crime they would have commited anyway no matter what the punishment is a complete waste of time and resources,what is the point in keeping Watkins in prison for the rest of his natural life ? This isn't about revenge it is about the nature of his crimes ,the guy is an evil sicko, wether it's his fault he is this way is another arguement but keeping him locked away for 50 years or whatever solves nothing. Sweet Pete believes it is wrong and so does the British government. I hope it never comes back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Parr Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 I'd say it was a bit of a punishment for his crime. We are collectively paying for him to live his life apart from us. The majority of people don't want to do that Source? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.