Would you Believe It ???

[Tim_MaA_MidB]

People being released too early, is not an arguement in favour of death penalty.

[J.R.]

Why even bother arresting them in the first place ?

The cost of the trial exceeds the sentence !

[DavebytheSea]

.... and our Home Office admit today that at least 50 people sentenced to Life after the year 2,000 have ALREADY BEEN RELEASED ON LICENCE !

So that now makes a life sentence in this country around 6 years !

And you lot wonder why I believe in capital punishment ?

The way things are going, by the year 2,050, anybody convicted of murder will be eligable to an immediate parole, £10 Grand from the poor box and a guaranteed pension.

Tony Martin had the right idea !

JR please read and think about some of the previous postings on this thread. There is logic there and compassion as well as plain gut feelings!!

[J.R.]

I have read them Dave, and compassion is NOT a word in my vocabulary when it comes to some of these offenders.

[Richard Ruck]

What is fairly obvious is that both the Home Office and the judiciary need to sort themselves out. It IS ludicrous that people who have been convicted of very serious crimes should be allowed to regain their freedom after relatively brief periods of time.

However, none of this, in my view, presents a case for the restoration of capital punishment, on the grounds of cost, revenge, to assuage the clamourings of the popular press or indeed for any other reason.

If our society has deemed that it is wrong for one human being to kill another, then that is how it should be.

The state, in the form of our elected representatives and our judiciary, has no business ordering the termination of a life, no matter how vile the person in question might be, and no matter how much it would seem that the world would be a better place if they suddenly ceased to exist.

And, lastly, if our political and judicial systems are apparently unable to apply existing sentencing procedures in a correct and even-handed manner, could you REALLY trust them to deal properly with life-or-death decisions in a 100% foolproof way?

[DavebytheSea]

What is fairly obvious is that both the Home Office and the judiciary need to sort themselves out. It IS ludicrous that people who have been convicted of very serious crimes should be allowed to regain their freedom after relatively brief periods of time.

However, none of this, in my view, presents a case for the restoration of capital punishment, on the grounds of cost, revenge, to assuage the clamourings of the popular press or indeed for any other reason.

If our society has deemed that it is wrong for one human being to kill another, then that is how it should be.

The state, in the form of our elected representatives and our judiciary, has no business ordering the termination of a life, no matter how vile the person in question might be, and no matter how much it would seem that the world would be a better place if they suddenly ceased to exist.

And, lastly, if our political and judicial systems are apparently unable to apply existing sentencing procedures in a correct and even-handed manner, could you REALLY trust them to deal properly with life-or-death decisions in a 100% foolproof way?

I mostly agree with everything you have said, RR

EXCEPT

If our society has deemed that it is wrong for one human being to kill another, then that is how it should be.

I believe it is ALWAYS wrong to kill irrespective of what the state says. (I am sure that this is what you believe too, Richard)

[DavebytheSea]

I have read them Dave, and compassion is NOT a word in my vocabulary when it comes to some of these offenders.

But why are they so bad, JR? If it is not their upbringing, then what is it that makes them bad? If I did not know you better, I would think that you were saying that they should be done away with because they are like vermin in our society. That is that it sounds as if you believe that they should suffer death simply because of what they are - that you would think it was immaterial whether or not they were responsible for being that person. A rat should be killed because it is a rat and not because it has done anything wrong. Is that really what you mean by the sanctity of human life, JR.

........... remember the holocaust. That was the result of treating people as if they were vermin - as many at the time sincerely believed they were.

[Richard Ruck]

Perhaps I made my point a little clumsily.

My argument is that the state should not make laws which maintain that killing is always wrong, but then make an exception (in the form of judicial killing) to suit its own purpose.

My personal view is, as you rightly say, that killing is wrong.

Not ALWAYS wrong, mind you. In extremis, in self-defence or in defence of others it can most certainly be justified, and we haven't even touched upon the morality of the act of killing in time of war, but that's another discussion, I think!

[Tim_MaA_MidB]

Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends. -- J. R. R. Tolkien (1892 - 1973), The Lord Of the Rings, Book Four, Chapter One

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. -- Mahatma Gandhi (1869 - 1948), (attributed)

[graham]

Tony Martin had the right idea

I think this is a controversial statement to make and maybe one which came up in a thread a while back. From my recollection of that case, a large amount of evidence was presented that suggested that Mr Martin was psycologically unstable and possessed an overwhelming desire to exact physical revenge for a number of previous break-ins at his home. I know and understand your point, JR, that a person should be able to defend their home and family against those who seek to do them harm. There are a number of simple ways of doing this, such as increased security equipment. As a last resort, self-defense is always justifiable. However, Mr Martin went a step further and shot a fleeing burglar in the back. There were a number of reports that suggested that Mr Martin had also made his home 'more appealing' to burglars, in order to tempt them in so that he could shoot them. Even ignoring this claim, his actions were not reasonable and reciprocal. If the burglar had attacked him, he would have been within his rights. Had the burglar just been armed, perhaps. But the man was fleeing and had his back to him. It was cold blooded killing. The man is not a hero, but in my opinion a very disturbed individual. If everyone behaved in a similar fashion, the boundaries between reasonable defence and premeditated killing would be blurred beyond distinction.

The system had undoubtably failed Mr Martin and will definitely fail others in the future. However, until we find a way to build a utopian society (and based on Hollwood's suggestions even these are flawed) we're going to have to accept that this does happen. However, that can't be an excuse to take matters into one's own hands, as paediatricians everywhere will testify to. Mr Martin committed a crime that was greater than that of the man he shot, and he should have been punished as such (although in his case, treatment may have been more appropriate).

On another note, the BBC article on the death penalty appeals also noted that one man, who had spent 10 years on death row, had been given the opportunity to appeal after DNA evidence suggested he may have been innocent. The sad truth is that many of those residing on death row did not have access to proper counsel at the time of trial and such tests may not have been carried out or ignored. I wonder how many others would be cleared if they could have had access to proper forensic testing? The victims of crime aren't just those who are murdered or raped, they are also be the wrongly convicted. Using the death penalty takes away those peoples chance at correcting society's mistakes, and maybe for that reason alone it should be abolished.

[J.R.]

I see on tonights news that the Home Office has been forced to admit that there are three 'lifers' still free after absconding from prison, one, a murderer from Leyhill Open Prison.

It gets worse and worse !

What's that expression ?

'The insane are running the asylum !'

Maybe we'd be safer on the inside with them on the outside !

[Tim_MaA_MidB]

Well, maybe the murderer is (was) inside for shooting a couple of burglers!

[Katharine]

The judicial system as we have it now is a very blunt instrument. The word murder could cover a premeditated act, a response to great provocation or a variety of scenarios in between. The law does not differentiate between these. In general I do not believe that the public at large are at danger just because a murderer is free (with obvious exceptions when someone kills for the thrill of it - but these are the minority.)

[cj]

This is an extremely interesting debate and I shall wade in with a general opinion! I believe that many people are not made to feel valued by those around them and that this can sometimes cause them to express their anger/pain/confusion/loneliness etc. in ways that are deemed unacceptable by society. If prisons were holding those that needed to be there - for our sake, that they are a danger to others - then they could receive the 'treatment' they need. And I do call it 'treatment'; in that firstly, denying them freedom in the sense that we outside understand it is the punishment; secondly, that mentoring/counselling helps learning to understand the reasons behind the behaviour (you can't change what you do if you don't know why you do it - see footnote 1*); and thirdly, education provides life skills often lacking and a reason for not returning to previous habits. (Does committing 'financial fraud' really require being locked away?) It all takes a bit longer and a bit more effort than locking someone away or killing them, but giving people some hope and a sense of worth for the future is what it's about isn't it? And you can't replace a lifetime of neglect in an instant. Someone once commented about the youth of today, that they seem to be off the rails. The reply was that we get the young people we deserve. And maybe that applies across the board. Treat others with respect and value them for what they are.

The other thing that would have a major impact on all our lives would be the moderation of our eating habits. I genuinely believe that if we all ate properly, the result would be a huge decrease in 'problem' behaviour. So, no sugar, caffeine and refined wheat products. Vegetables, proteins and a few wholegrains are what we need to physically survive and nourish our brains.

* 1. The only exception to that would be paedophiles who cannot change their sexuality. So if they cannot control themselves, and many can't, they need to be kept away from the temptation.

[DavebytheSea]

Cath, I do so agree with all that - especially the first paragraph which is brilliant. Thank you!