It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should The UK Use The Death Penalty?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 12:08 PM
link   
i agree with odium repeat offenders of large scale crimes should be killed or crimes so large scale eg 20 killed should be after full proof can be found and the opposition can be heard.




posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 12:36 PM
link   
I think the idea that any but the tinniest fraction of murderers are going to be 'deterred' by a death sentence is just ridiculous.

In the UK at least we simply don't have significant numbers of people who kill repeatedly, most killings are by people well known to the victim in a 'heat of the moment' incident that is far from thought out or planned.

.....and as for those 'difficult cases' like child killers etc?
Well, if the price of never getting it wrong and never wrongly executing someone who did not actually do this then I for one am happy that we do not worry about that particular little 'cost' of being a civillised people.

Those that do commit those kind of acts are in any event clearly severely mentally ill so what sort of supposedly 'civillised' society executes those clearly mentally incompetent?



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
...Well, if the price of never getting it wrong and never wrongly executing someone who did not actually do this then I for one am happy that we do not worry about that particular little 'cost' of being a civillised people...


i would have one innocent man killed under false allegations / false conviction rather than the headline in my local newspaper, recently released prisoner kills 5 again



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by mik0001000
i would have one innocent man killed under false allegations / false conviction rather than the headline in my local newspaper, recently released prisoner kills 5 again


- I'd be interested in a look at that story, I can't find any reference to it anywhere........ any chance of a link?

Frankly I doubt the choice is ever quite that simplistic but for all that here's hoping if you ever were to get your wish and the UK reinstated a death penalty that it would never be you or a child of yours 'legally' murdered, eh?

(.....and let's not get too carried away with the notion of a fool-proof judicial system - of any kind - that makes for a 100% safe and perfect life for all.
It can't be done, even systems with capital punishment sometimes get it wrong and the public may end up at risk.

I would suggest that an example of a released prisoner killing again indicates (to me, anyway) that the system of release was at fault and wrong, not that 'we' should be risking reducing ourselves to the level of the murderous and ending up killing the innocent.)


[edit on 27-10-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 07:07 PM
link   
I think it's important we actually look at the reasons why we have laws at all before we try to answer this question. As a student studying criminology, I take to an extent the positivist view that law is there to discourage individuals to commit or recommit crime. Knowing this, let's analyse the situation. Historically speaking, has he use of the death penalty reduced crime through the ages? My answer would be no, or at least not drastically. When we consider the amount of crime that was commited post-20th century and that was with the death penalty in place in the UK at least, it shows that it doesn't make a huge amount of difference.

Then again, if we look at it from a more classicalist approach, the death pnealty is important becasue it does give the victims family a sense of satisfaction and finality to, for example, a murder case. In addition, it could be argued that there was higher crime in the past even with the death penalty in the UK, because of the socio-economic situations the poorer classes found themselves in.

It's a tricky one, but all things considered I don't think the death penalty will make a whole lot of difference becasue people have been socialised in such a way that gives authority a negative image. We need to educate to change society, rather than force thigns upon people.

Notice how the more law we have, the more crime we get? Perhaps if we had less law, and had the laws we do have enforced better crime wouldnt be as much of an issue?



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 02:35 PM
link   
John Pearce. I find it odd that you’d compare society of the last hundred years as a way of comparing the death penalty in our society. As a student of criminology you’ll know that most crimes are socially constructed - this can easily be seen in the cross cultural differences of crime [such as age of consent in Japan compared to that of the United Kingdom]. It heavily goes against the idea that crime is natural a part of our psyche which Lombroso put forward.

However, as you are aware not all crimes are socially constructed and not all criminals [deviants] are in fact able to be rehabilitated. This is where people have to make a social judgement. Is the crime so inhuman that it is neither beneficial to society [in the way in which Durkheim suggested] and isn’t socially constructed [as Lemert suggested]. In the cases of rapists and murders, who do it on more than one occasion I think this has to be the better option.

In the United Kingdom, millions are wasted on these people who for all intensive purposes will not contribute to Society in a positive way. So you have to make the value judgement, is the money better spent on other things…even if these things are related in the Judiciary or Prison system. We also need to examine punishments, rights of prisoners and the legal system itself - being someone who already works in this field, I find it shocking that only three years ago the Courts got funding to install a Nation wide system of intranets…prior to that everything was still paper-based.

As for the re-working of laws, if crimes are removed from statute they will be no longer crimes. However does society want those actions to no longer be deviant? I wrote an interesting article on it here.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Do drug addicts still get jailed? Why is it so expensive for prisons to be run? Do they get like plasma screens and stuff? Why are sentences getting shorter?
My opinion on the death penelty? It might be dangerous, if abused. I mean, would the government be able to say that you were a terroist, and then concoct evidence to prove that? Perhaps, it might not even make it to trial. Just bring them up to the chopping block, or better yet, garrot them. Then anyone is in danger. It might be used to instill fear into the masses, like an unlucky national lottery, with a big hand pointing at random, screaming "Its YOU!!"
It's dangerous. But I doubt we'll descend into totaltarisim. Unless, they'll bring out those ID cards.
Then we're all screwed.

[edit on 16/11/05 by MacDonagh]



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by MacDonagh
Do they get like plasma screens and stuff? Why are sentences getting shorter?


At the prison my friends dad works at they get plasma screens, x-boxes, etc, in their cells. It isn't prison but rather a 5Star Hotel for five years.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 05:57 PM
link   
I just thought that was conservative propaganda??!? C'mon Odium! You can't be serious! Why are they given plasma screens and XBOXS? Is it because they have been "good"? Well, if they were bloody good, then they'd have bought their own plasma screens like everyone else. There bloody expensive though. And I'm just a journalism student, with little to no money. Where's my plasma screen?!?


[edit on 16/11/05 by MacDonagh]



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by MacDonagh
C'mon Odium! You can't be serious! Why are they given plasma screens and XBOXS?


I wish I was mate. When you work in the legal field, like I do you tend to find out a lot about the Government and its 'Light Handed' Policy towards convicts. It is shocking that they get all of this and much more for 'being good' while in Prison and 'helping'. By helping I mean serving food one hour a week and so on and so fourth.

It is a joke...


Originally posted by MacDonagh
Is it because they have been "good"? Well, if they were bloody good, then they'd have bought their own plasma screens like everyone else.


Couldn't agree with you more.


Originally posted by MacDonagh
There bloody expensive though. And I'm just a journalism student, with little to no money. Where's my plasma screen?!?



And this is why I support a much tougher prison system. It is a waste of money and is forcing people who can't affordto go to Uni yet are talented enough to drop out.

Good ol' British Politics, keepin' the Workin' Class in their place.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by MacDonagh
Why are they given plasma screens and XBOXS? Is it because they have been "good"?


Politicians....nuff said really....


Well, if they were bloody good, then they'd have bought their own plasma screens like everyone else.


There's a idea which I'm greatly in favour of, the prisoner starts off at level 0, they get the very basic living standards, no television, cheap nasty food etc etc.
If the prisoner behaves really well they recieve ''treats'', for example the use of salt and pepper at meal time, or a upgrade of the standard of their meals.

So really they have to earn what they get, of course there'd be no xboxs, plasma televisions or anything similar.

Prison is a punishment not a holiday camp people!



[edit on 17-11-2005 by UK Wizard]



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 10:46 AM
link   
OK, so it's not 'death penalty' and therefore off topic but this plasma TV and x-box stuff needs clearing up.

Prisoners are not given a plasma TV nor do they just get an x-box.

There may be examples of some prisons in the UK system where there is a plasma tv (bought because of a deal with the supplier and for the sheer size of these things alone) in a communal room and similarly there may be an x-box or 2 with a couple of games in a shared room but prisoners are not just given this stuff as their personal property.

Wise up.

I defy anyone who think prison is a lovely doss and a good time to go and experience it (and not just one of those 'open' nice prisons for 'white collar' and middle class criminals).

Plainly some people here haven't a clue what they are talking about.

I see mik0001000 never came back to back up his tale of -


i would have one innocent man killed under false allegations / false conviction rather than the headline in my local newspaper, recently released prisoner kills 5 again


Maybe he was American?



[edit on 17-11-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 11:32 AM
link   
sminkeypinkey, I wish I was joking however you are wrong on this issue mate.

The prisonners at Bullingdon, have been given these on rare occassions for their cells. It is common place for them to have a T.V. the communal rooms are better than my college and the list can go on.

I know someone who was suspended for breaking an X-box game, even though the prison in the cell was throwing them on the floor and he stood on it.

The prison system is a joke.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- Well seeing as you ask, yes, I think the US 'state' (or 'states') are barbaric for deliberately taking human life which would otherwise have survived.
Sorry if it offends anyone but that's my view on any country that takes life in that manner.


Interesting definition. An abortion is the "taking of a human life which would otherwise have survived," isn't it?

Is it moral to only snuff out the innocent, but to refuse to kill the guilty?

Hmmm. interesting take on barbarity.

Pay no attention to me tho. I'm an American, and can't sort out the nuances of right and wrong the way you sophisticated Europeans can.




posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
The prisonners at Bullingdon, have been given these on rare occassions for their cells.


- So they are not, afterall, just given them then?

They are allowed and given the use of them but they do not become their property?


It is common place for them to have a T.V.


- Oh come on Odium, you surely don't think having a tv is the height of luxury now do you?


The prison system is a joke.


- Parts of it may well have it's faults (and I do not think all catagories of UK prisons are the same, nor all prisons of the same catagory even) but it hardly makes the entire thing a joke.

Like I said, those who imagine it such a laugh should try it.
Parkhurst or Wormwood Scrubs would be good ones to try first I reckon, then come back and tell us how lovely and cushy it all is.


Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
An abortion is the "taking of a human life which would otherwise have survived," isn't it?


- Well obviously not in the same sense as a developed person that has been born and is alive, no.


Is it moral to only snuff out the innocent, but to refuse to kill the guilty?


- Firstly I do not see this as a case of 'either or' anyway and secondly I do not accept the parallel you wish to draw.

I do not think an unborn child of 24wks (the normal current UK limit for abortion) is the same as a born and alive developed human being (of any age).


Hmmm. interesting take on barbarity.


- Not really.
You are using this comment for another angle on the abortion issue.
That is all.

You appear to be anti and I am pro (under the law).
You are entitled and free to hold your view as I am mine, thankfully.


Pay no attention to me tho. I'm an American, and can't sort out the nuances of right and wrong the way you sophisticated Europeans can.


- I dunno what this is about.

[edit on 17-11-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Sorry, but i feel you have to bring basic human rights issues into view here. Under the UN delecarlations of Human Rights, everyone is intitled to the same thing. EU law aswell states that, thats why this country signed off the Dealth Penalty. If the UK fights and screams about human rights aboard, it cannot break human rights laws at home.

Its better to put someone in prison in life then giving them the Death Penalty. By using murder to stop murder is becoming apart of the problem. The Death Penalty is State murder.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
If you leave them in prison for life then it is a waste of money [in fact, we spend over 10million on repeat offenders [murders, rapists and pedophiles] which I think should be better spent.


Well, as a point of fact, here in the U.S. it's usually more costly to kill them than to keep them in jail for the rest of their lives. The death penalty triggers automatically granted appeals which costs the gov't so much in legal fees (in these cases, usually the gov't is paying for both the prosecution and the defense), it eclipses the amount it would cost to just keep them locked up and feed them.

[edit on 11/17/2005 by djohnsto77]



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 01:18 PM
link   
sminkeypinkey, when my friends dad works on the ward with either murderers, rapists or pedophilies it is far too good for them. Let alone is the sentence they gain a joke, they live in a state that is comfortable for doing next to nothing.

I am sorry if I think giving a T.V, X-Box, et al items is too good for a man who rapes a woman but that's me mate. I find the time they spend in prison [about 5 years] also to be a joke for the crime they commit and I do wonder how the victims would feel if they knew what went on inside the prisons. Especailly when they spend the rest of their lives with those memories...



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 01:44 PM
link   
If they are allowed XBOXS, and Tvs (which I think is too good for "Them" in my humble opinion) despite the barbarity of their crimes, are we just reinforcing the idea that their crimes are justified? 5 years does not seem so bad since you can while away the hours playing XBOX and watching TV. Is the death penelty as barbaric as it seems? Garroting is barbaric. Public beheadings are barbaric. Public hangings are barbaric. How about shooting them? It's quicker then garroting and sometimes it takes two swings from a big axe to fully behead someone (Three if you have a large neck.) I have no love for anyone who rapes anyone else. I think its even worse then murder. It lives with the victim forever. Whilst the attacker spends his nights in jail playing Xbox, his victim will have nightmares. Ya see, rapists are psychopaths. "They" believe they are justified in doing what they did. So there is no chance of rehablitation. That's much the same for murderers. Well, serial killers anyway.



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
sminkeypinkey, when my friends dad works on the ward with either murderers, rapists or pedophilies it is far too good for them.


- OK, you might prefer to just lump all "murders, rapists and paedophiles" together as if each committed the exact self same crime with no variation or mitigation whatsoever but I don't.

It's a difficult one for people I agree but every crime is different and not every one is a cruel horror deserving the worst of punishments.
Hence the various categories and variation in sentences (although sentences for these serious crimes are now subject to a new tariff regime).

In the UK at least, most murders are carried out either accidentally or 'in the heat of the moment' by person(s) known to the victim.

The same is true of rape, which like paedophilia, is invariably about 'power and 'domination'.
In other words a mental illness.

What would you have?
Poke knives into them 24/7 or a version of the 'medieval torture hour' every so often?

I am glad we are above that.
I am glad we do not resort to killing them.
I am glad that despite denying them their liberty and separating them from the rest of society we are not cruel or inhumane.
I am glad we are better than that and continue to treat all like human beings even if they themselves have been incapable of meeting that basic standard.

Communal games or TV or allowing them some personal possessions (or charity provided) portable tv's or an x-box for that matter is hardly 'luxury' or an easy life, in my book.
They're piddling little possessions which do not compare to the total loss of ones' liberty.

[sarcasm mode]If you're really moaning about not having an old battered x-box (cos you can bet they are hardly looked after) then go commit a really serious crime, apparently they get them free in every prison now.....oh, and get raped by Mr Big in the showers a few times a week for years on end and live a regimented life away from all you know and love for umteen years with absolutely no liberty for umteen years.
What a great doss and easy life![/sarcasm mode]



I find the time they spend in prison [about 5 years] also to be a joke for the crime they commit


- 5yrs for all murderers, rapists and paedophiles?

Why are you saying this, you must know it is not true.


I do wonder how the victims would feel if they knew what went on inside the prisons.


- Do you think people really don't know how brutal, cruel and bestial prison can be?
We know but just prefer not to think about it (or spend any more money than we have to on it).
It is part of the unwritten additional punishment that 'we' all turn our backs and ignore the homosexual rapes and gang cultures.


Especially when they spend the rest of their lives with those memories...


- That's as may be but a death sentence fixes none of the damage done to victim or victims' family and we most certainly do not jail the worst murders, rapists and paedophiles in the UK for just 5yrs.

[edit on 18-11-2005 by sminkeypinkey]




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join