Jambomo Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 I'll ask you the same question I asked Anonapersona. Whit sentence wid ye give tae a murderer ? I would give a murderer whatever sentence it is that judges generally give a murderer - which varies greatly depending on the circumstances of the crime. Capital punishment has never stopped murders or crimes from being committed. What does happen though, is that sometimes miscarriages of justice occur and the wrong person goes to prison. It's bad enough to take away years of someone's life by mistake but to actually kill them and realise would be appalling. What I want to know is why; when it doesn't prevent crime, when it's still as expensive as prision due to the length of time inmates are on Death Row and when it is a cruel and uncivilised way for a society to act; why people want it brought back? There is nothing good about it at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 They should put it on television on Saturday nights. Not because it's moral but it's better than Ant and Dec's Saturday Night Takeaway, Followed by Rollerball,Jonathon Jonathon Jonathon!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyerTon Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 High Treason was still punishable by death until 1998. It was abolished in 1965 for all other crimes So the Tories retained it most of the way through the 1990's? A year after they were kicked out in 1997 it gets abolished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 Gandalf.better than Jesus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuzzyAffro Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 Well I think there' always going to be a problem with the justice system. It's not fail-safe because it's run by people, and people make mistakes. It's only a matter of time before there's a wrongful execution and for that reason alone it should never be put into practice. So with that, for the most heinous crimes, life imprisonment should mean life without parole. There's no way Peter Sutcliffe will ever be released. The last person hanged in the UK, James Hanratty, was pardoned a few years ago. Didn't do him much good given he's been dead for about 60 years though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddly optomistic Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 The last person hanged in the UK, James Hanratty, was pardoned a few years ago. Didn't do him much good given he's been dead for about 60 years though.I'm pretty sure DNA test were done that proved he was the murderer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Willie Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 Does this also apply in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria? Not sure about their laws regarding the death penalty, but I'd wager you could choose safer countries for your serial rampage. Send us a postcard, anyways. I didnae word that post correctly. I meant is it all right for British soldiers tae kill folk in those countries? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 The Hanratty case is absolutey fascinating Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTJohnboy Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 I wouldn't have shed too many tears if Tony Blair had been strung up for his treasonable war crimes in Iraq. Ironically enough it was his government that, in 1998, did away with the death penalty for such crimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTJohnboy Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 The Hanratty case is absolutey fascinating I find this one even more fascinating and it probably hastened the abolition of the death penalty for murder. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2194061/Ruth-Ellis-death-penalty-Doomed-hang-refused-betray-lover--insisted-staying-tarty-blonde.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuzzyAffro Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 I'm pretty sure DNA test were done that proved he was the murderer Turns out you're right, just googled it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crùbag Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 No. End of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotbawmad Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 Do you think the death penalty would be a deterrent to suicide bombers? The only way to deter a suicide bomber is not to incite them in the first place. Bringing in a police state, barricading important buildings and having swarms of security teams around high value targets is not the way to solve it. I wouldn't have shed too many tears if Tony Blair had been strung up for his treasonable war crimes in Iraq. Ironically enough it was his government that, in 1998, did away with the death penalty for such crimes. People like Tony Blair and big corporate figures have legal and political shields to protect them from the consequences of their crimes. So essentially, they're above the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTJohnboy Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 The only way to deter a suicide bomber is not to incite them in the first place. Bringing in a police state, barricading important buildings and having swarms of security teams around high value targets is not the way to solve it. People like Tony Blair and big corporate figures have legal and political shields to protect them from the consequences of their crimes. So essentially, they're above the law. You have to wonder just how many became suicide bombers thanks to Tony Blair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banana Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 Yes, another extremist policy/law is exactly what we need. We could file it under Social justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete's Frontier Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 If that Boston bomber kid had carried out his atrocity in Scotland, maybe your own patch, would you be all so liberal and forgiving? He's getting what he deserves, a one way ticket to hell to dine with his brother and their rancid culture. Boston, the most liberal of US cities, 12 of its honest citizens, all came to the same conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banana Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 If that Boston bomber kid had carried out his atrocity in Scotland, maybe your own patch, would you be all so liberal and forgiving? Not everyone's empathy towards others increases/decreases based on their proximity, nationality and creed. Certainly doesn't affect the reasoning involved in being against capital punishment. The emotional response, perhaps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsforlife Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 It's quite funny to see taking emotion out of you're analysis as a bad thing. "I get what you are saying but what if you were being irrational about it ... " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banana Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 It's quite funny to see taking emotion out of you're analysis as a bad thing. I said the opposite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete's Frontier Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 Not everyone's empathy towards others increases/decreases based on their proximity, nationality and creed. Certainly doesn't affect the reasoning involved in being against capital punishment. The emotional response, perhaps. A very liberal city decided this killer deserved to pay the capital price and the jurors were prepared to bear that personal burden of condemning this dude. All I'm saying is if that option was available to a jury here, in similar circumstances, they'd probably do the same. And there should be no need for backsliding, liberal hand wringing, all the usual churchmen and apologist voices to stop that verdict. The victims should also have a say, in Tsarnaev's case there were 264 injured, many with terrible injuries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.