permalink for this thread : http://search.catflaporama.com/post/browse/794668
kazza Posted on 13/11/2008 23:29
death penalty yes

vote here

Hammo_MFC Posted on 13/11/2008 23:31
death penalty yes

Bored Kazza?

ian_elliot Posted on 13/11/2008 23:31
death penalty yes

I no vote.

borobadge Posted on 13/11/2008 23:32
death penalty

no.

scooby Posted on 13/11/2008 23:33
death penalty

No.

SplendidStuff Posted on 13/11/2008 23:34
death penalty

"do you think if we had the death penalty, crimes like this would go on


i dont think so"


Not a good start to your campaign kazza.

ridsdale Posted on 13/11/2008 23:36
death penalty

You wouldn't want to fall asleep in the same bed as kazza like would you?

collo1875 Posted on 14/11/2008 00:12
death penalty

im guessing this is because of the baby case
but at work today we were discussing the 89 year old war hero who was being burgled and trying to protect his 87 year old wife
he was basically beat to a pulp and is now in hospital (this all happened on remembrance sunday)
after seeing the photos in the paper i would not have a problem pulling the leaver to hang the 2 b@2&ards who done this,
not a problem at all

scooby Posted on 14/11/2008 00:14
death penalty

collo, you know what? I wouldn't have a problem if they died either. Same goes for the baby torturers. The bottom line is though, I wouldn't give the legal power to kill someone to anyone, let alone my government.

ProudToComeFromTeesside Posted on 14/11/2008 00:16
death penalty

I was always for the death penalty and indeed in some cases, reckon some of today's killers deserve it, but one mistake is too big a price to pay. How would you feel if your neck was about to be stretched and you knew you were innocent?

SplendidStuff Posted on 14/11/2008 00:17
death penalty

Exactly it has happened and would happen again.


collo1875 Posted on 14/11/2008 00:20
death penalty

It would have to be beyond doubt, i know that
and im not sure if i would have it back or not
but when cases like these 2 arise it makes me wonder

kazza Posted on 14/11/2008 00:20
death penalty

how many times as it happened?

SplendidStuff Posted on 14/11/2008 00:22
death penalty

How the hell would i know, you have google don't you.

It has happened and will still be happening in countries with the death penalty, to deny it is very naive.

scooby Posted on 14/11/2008 00:25
death penalty

"how many times as it happened?"

Eh? How many is too many?

kazza Posted on 14/11/2008 00:26
death penalty

beating the yes /no though

SplendidStuff Posted on 14/11/2008 00:27
death penalty

Well done you seem like a sharp one.

Mr_Black Posted on 14/11/2008 00:35
death penalty

"it would have to be beyond doubt"

ok, well since that isn't actually possible we'll just say no death penalty.

collo1875 Posted on 14/11/2008 01:11
death penalty

How the hell is that NOT possible?
theres a big new world out there
we even have cctv cameras now
you should get out a bit more

br14 Posted on 14/11/2008 01:55
death penalty yes

You would have to have absolute faith in the justice system to vote for the death penalty.

I suggest you ask any lawyers that come on here how they would vote.

My guess is a big fat No.

Machiavellian Posted on 14/11/2008 02:57
death penalty yes

'I suggest you ask any lawyers that come on here how they would vote'

The very people who've done more harm to this country with their human rights act etc than anybody in history.

With DNA testing we should now be able to make sure the right people are executed.

Having said that I still think a better alternative to capital punishment would be to make sure murderers serve a minimum of at least 30 years.

Timboi Posted on 14/11/2008 03:52
death penalty yes

We need a third thread. I'm in favour of a bit of torture but no actual death.

Rodney_Trotter Posted on 14/11/2008 08:19
death penalty yes

There is no doubt at all who has killed this young baby, so there is not even a 0.1% chance of being a miscarriage of justice.

The appeal courts and massive leaps forward in DNA tesing and the like means it is highly unlikely to result in a massive miscarriage of justice.

Those who go on about deterrant, I`m sure the Home secretary recently said we needed to get back to the judicial system being about deterrant and punishment first and foremost.

AyresomeJoy Posted on 14/11/2008 08:29
death penalty yes

A firm no.

The_same_as_before Posted on 14/11/2008 08:50
death penalty yes

Ayresome, what would you do with 3 who killed that child? Cold cell, 24hours, bread and marge, water, allow an hourly visit from the other prisoners?

scooby Posted on 14/11/2008 09:37
death penalty yes

rodney, did you remember that case about that children's home where they found that dungeon and a child's skull? Turns out after months of the police banging on about it that is was a 100 year old piece of coconut shell.

Doesn't really give me faith in the system that even that could go on so long.

If there is so little doubt, why did they have a trial? How do you choose which crimes get treated as 'nailed on' and which ones do you say to the people convicted and in prison for life that "we won't kill you because we are not 100% on this"



The_same_as_before Posted on 14/11/2008 09:40
death penalty yes

The Hackney case is nailed on. There's a dead child with finger nails missing and a broken back.

As iot happens I am also against capital punishment, but that argument does not stack up.

nealg Posted on 14/11/2008 09:43
death penalty yes

If trotter works for network rail, he wastes a lot of our public subsidy getting paid to sit on the net at work. Perhaps a dock in wages and we might get value for money. Couldnt - care - less from private rail companies and negligent workers caused deaths at hatfield, slough, potters bar to name a few. Hanging?

scooby Posted on 14/11/2008 09:43
death penalty yes

Of course the argument stacks up, you can't have a legal system where you decide that one case is is 'nailed on' but another isn't but still deserves prison. If you can't understand that then please don't ever pursue a career in the law because you'd be sending innocent people to jail every day.

I hope you never get accused of a crime you didn't commit and find that there are people willing to make an emotional judgement on which version of the law they apply to you.

Anim8 Posted on 14/11/2008 09:47
death penalty yes

"There is no doubt at all who has killed this young baby, so there is not even a 0.1% chance of being a miscarriage of justice.

The appeal courts and massive leaps forward in DNA tesing and the like means it is highly unlikely to result in a massive miscarriage of justice."

You may well be right that the perpetrators are almost certainly those that were convicted, but that's not really the issue is it? To bring back the death penalty means the definition of ‘certain guilt’ would have to be legislated, so what would that be? However you defined ‘certain guilt’ would always mean there would be crimes right at the boundaries of this arbitrary threshold that just would fall into the category and that’s where you get miscarriages of justice.

To point out that there have been massive steps forward in DNA testing merely demonstrates the paradox that you should not be relying so heavily on the current sophistication of forensics. I mean, who’s to say in twenty years time, scientists don’t discover a new technique that we can’t even imagine currently, that proves that some of the DNA results today are incorrect?

The appeals courts couldn’t have saved the numerous people stitched up over the IRA bombing campaign. As long as there are members of the public with the taste of blood in their mouths, there will always be a police force ready to lose a piece of evidence.

The deterrent argument is equally hollow. They’ve been frying men and women in the US for decades and it hasn’t appeared to have persuaded criminals to stop murdering and raping. What makes you think it would work here?

Ultimately, why take the risk of killing an innocent person? To satisfy the feeling of vengeance for such crimes?

Venizzle Posted on 14/11/2008 09:49
death penalty yes

Just employ Batman.

Tom_Fun Posted on 14/11/2008 09:58
death penalty yes

Just move to Texas, you'd be far more suited to there.

ProudToComeFromTeesside Posted on 14/11/2008 11:10
death penalty yes

Saw summat on the History channel last night about Britain's most prolific executioner, Albert Pierrepoint. His view was that hanging was not a deterrent and the sole purpose it served was revenge.

I just wish that life sentences meant exactly that - ie you leave in a wooden box. None of this "minimum of 15 years" rubbish.

The_same_as_before Posted on 14/11/2008 11:25
death penalty yes

Scooby, by your logic, no-one can be found guilty and any penalty of prison is as wrong as the death penalty.


FFS, we have a system of criminal and civil law, 12 just men decide, you have a right of appeal.

There is no argument that these 3 were guilty.

AS for the death penalty, I am against it.

susy Posted on 14/11/2008 11:27
death penalty yes

Im against it. I feel that criminals should do their time,the justice system isnt right but bringing back the death penalty is not an option in my book. As for it being a deterent... I really dont think it would work anyway.

scooby Posted on 14/11/2008 11:30
death penalty yes

Well read Amin8's post as he is saying what I said in a much more eloquent manner. I'm not saying they were not guilty but people are suggesting we have the current level of guilt that we use to convict people and then we have this other level which is "definitely, no question about it guilty". Well the current level of guilt does not allow for any doubt when convicting so how would you define "very guilty"?

And how would you describe that in a law?

Rodney_Trotter Posted on 14/11/2008 11:31
death penalty yes

Anim8 - Whats the point in prosecuting anyone if in 20 years a new technique proves DNA incorrect? We may as well not prosecute anyone.

If the death penalty isn`t a deterrant, why would prison be? The Home secretary has recently stated that criminals should be first and foremost punished before thinking about rehabilitating them.

Call it revenge, vengance whatever you like, the fact of the matter is that someone who can carry out these henious crimes against an innocent loses any right to life in my book

susy Posted on 14/11/2008 11:34
death penalty yes

DNA can prove you were there at the scene of the crime and it can prove rape but then you have to prove that the person was the killer or criminal in any case I would guess. It wont be black and white there will always be grey areas.

scooby Posted on 14/11/2008 11:35
death penalty yes

How do you punish someone who isn't alive?

Grumpy_Paul Posted on 14/11/2008 11:47
death penalty yes

Simplify the system, a life sentance should mean life for murder with no option for release except on successful appeal.Furthermore it should be a harsh regime with no creature comforts and minimal basic food to sustain healthy life.
Manslaughter is available to the justice system if mitigating circunstances are involved.

The animals involved in the baby P case should get rest of natural life if found guilty.

ProudToComeFromTeesside Posted on 14/11/2008 11:54
death penalty yes

Spot on Grumpy Paul. Keeping people in prison longer would mean more prisons, but then the building trade would get a boost. Keep some of the costs down by not having as many "luxuries" for prisoners.

captain5 Posted on 14/11/2008 11:56
death penalty yes

A definite NO from me.

susy Posted on 14/11/2008 12:02
death penalty yes

The reality is though that a telly in a prison cell will keep the prisoner quiet and out of trouble therefore this luxury means there is less staff needed and staffing will be their greatest expense.


Im not saying that I agree with this mind, just that I believe this is how it works in reality. I agree that life should mean life though and rehabilitation should be properly funded and resourced for those who will return to our communities so that they dont reoffend the minute they are out again.

JonMc Posted on 14/11/2008 12:13
death penalty yes

No.

If we'd still had Capital Punishment there would be mothers swinging from the gibbet whose only crime would be to see their babies die from cot death.

Anim8 Posted on 14/11/2008 12:14
death penalty yes

“Anim8 - Whats the point in prosecuting anyone if in 20 years a new technique proves DNA incorrect? We may as well not prosecute anyone.

If the death penalty isn`t a deterrant, why would prison be? The Home secretary has recently stated that criminals should be first and foremost punished before thinking about rehabilitating them.

Call it revenge, vengance whatever you like, the fact of the matter is that someone who can carry out these henious crimes against an innocent loses any right to life in my book”

The point in prosecuting criminals is to try and create justice. By not killing them it allows you to resolve mistakes.

Prison may well not be a deterrent, but that’s not its purpose arguably. Keeping criminals safely away from society and rehabilitation are surely its main aims?

These people may lose the right to life, but that doesn’t give you or me the right to take it either.

JonMc Posted on 14/11/2008 12:15
death penalty yes

Less perks for prisoners.
More education in prisons.
Parole to be dependent on the ex-prisoner holding down a job otherwise back they go.

jiffy Posted on 14/11/2008 12:18
death penalty yes

A definite yes

Once you take another life you lose any form of human rights of your own.

I dont think we need more prisons. Custodial sentences whether we have the death penaty or not are over-used - we shoudl only lock away thsoe who are dangerous to society (all violent crimes) or persistent offenders (burglars). I dont see the point of locking someone up for nto paying their council tax or not sending their kids to school for example. Community service would make more sense.

Just as an aside I once applied for the job of executioner.

I was on holiday on the Isle of Man when they had their first murder for over 30 eyars and still ahd the death penalty. it looked like a certain conviction and they had noone to do the job.

I fancied the diea of living there and applied and was the only applicant.

At the interview the asked me to recommend the best way to do it - lethal injection, hanging, electric chair, gas chamber, beheading etc

I didnt get the job - he was found not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter which carried a lesser sentence. It was deemed a crime of passion - his wife was having an affair when he found out he pushed her under the wheels of one of the electric trams.

ProudToComeFromTeesside Posted on 14/11/2008 12:21
death penalty yes

Jiffy, how long ago was that? What method did you recommend?

Anim8 Posted on 14/11/2008 12:25
death penalty yes

maybe you could have driven a tram over his head?

jiffy Posted on 14/11/2008 12:25
death penalty yes

It was about 1990 I think. My daughter was still little and she is 24 now.

Took the holiday at short notice having just got a new job after being out of work for 3 months.

i sisnt decide on the method justpointed out that since it was the first for so long it didnt make sense investing in a high-cost solution like a gas chamber or electric chair so should count those out.

scooby Posted on 14/11/2008 12:27
death penalty yes

I'd reject anyone who applied to be an executioner on the basis that they applied for it!

jiffy Posted on 14/11/2008 12:31
death penalty yes

Like groucho not joining a club that would have him as a member eh:-)

Reckoned it would just be a one-off (head maybe :-)

I fancied living there and they used to be a bit like Jersey - wont let anyone in without a job guaranteed there or a millionaire.

i doubt I would have been kept busy with executions and reckoned I could find a job in my own line once there easy enough so it was a means to an end.

Cecil_J_Mctumshie Posted on 14/11/2008 12:32
death penalty

ridsdale Posted on 13/11/2008 23:36
death penalty

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You wouldn't want to fall asleep in the same bed as kazza like would you?


Yep I would(after having passionate sex of course)

And a big YES vote from me for bringing back death penalty



Rodney_Trotter Posted on 14/11/2008 12:33
death penalty yes

"If we'd still had Capital Punishment there would be mothers swinging from the gibbet whose only crime would be to see their babies die from cot death." No there wouldn`t. I don`t think anybody has advocated every murderer to be executed.

What the people who advocate the death penalty are suggesting is that people who commit henious crimes are punished by death.

"Prison may well not be a deterrent, but that’s not its purpose arguably" The purpose of prison is punishment and should only be used as so.

I think people who are convicted of an offence should serve the time they have been sentenced in prison, then start their rehabillitation. So if you are jailed for 5 years, you do 5 years punishment in jail, then after that time start your rehab. If that takes another 3 years in an institution so be it.

zoec Posted on 14/11/2008 12:33
death penalty yes

Couldn't you have applied for a job as a waiter or something, jiffy?!

jiffy Posted on 14/11/2008 12:36
death penalty yes

I think executioner paid better!


scooby Posted on 14/11/2008 12:36
death penalty yes

Or combine the two roles?

JonMc Posted on 14/11/2008 12:37
death penalty yes

"If we'd still had Capital Punishment there would be mothers swinging from the gibbet whose only crime would be to see their babies die from cot death." No there wouldn`t. I don`t think anybody has advocated every murderer to be executed.

What the people who advocate the death penalty are suggesting is that people who commit henious crimes are punished by death.
_____________________________________________________________________

You mean such as child murder? Or even multiple child murder?

littlejimmy Posted on 14/11/2008 12:37
death penalty yes

I would hope he would wash his hands between jobs.

The_same_as_before Posted on 14/11/2008 12:41
death penalty yes

As I have said numerous times I am against capital punishment, would I be the guy who hung the 3 who did this, yes.

Rodney_Trotter Posted on 14/11/2008 12:53
death penalty yes

""If we'd still had Capital Punishment there would be mothers swinging from the gibbet whose only crime would be to see their babies die from cot death." No there wouldn`t. I don`t think anybody has advocated every murderer to be executed.

What the people who advocate the death penalty are suggesting is that people who commit henious crimes are punished by death.
_____________________________________________________________________

You mean such as child murder? Or even multiple child murder?"

Can you explain to me how these mothers were freed? Was it the Court of Appeal? Ah yes, so why would they be swinging from the gibbet before their appeals were heard? Is anybody suggesting to hang them immediately after the guilty verdict? No.

scooby Posted on 14/11/2008 12:57
death penalty yes

make your mind up rodney, I thought we were absolutely 100% nailed on that they would have to be guilty before we kill them, now you are suggesting we wait a bit 'just in case' we were wrong?

Rodney_Trotter Posted on 14/11/2008 13:00
death penalty yes

"make your mind up rodney, I thought we were absolutely 100% nailed on that they would have to be guilty before we kill them, now you are suggesting we wait a bit 'just in case' we were wrong?"

No just suggesting that we follow the process that is in place now. Never said we should do away with the Court of Appeal. Why would I?

scooby Posted on 14/11/2008 13:02
death penalty yes

And how long after their conviction would you wait? You'd still have killed innocent people.

somethingtodowithdeath Posted on 14/11/2008 13:03
death penalty yes

No.

Rodney_Trotter Posted on 14/11/2008 13:09
death penalty yes

"And how long after their conviction would you wait? You'd still have killed innocent people." What are you on about?

Only after all avenues of appeal have been exhausted should the death penalty be enforced. I don`t understand why you think I have suggested that would change.

If sentenced to life in prison once your appeal is exhausted you spend life in prison, thats how it works isn`t it.

I`m only in favour of adding an extra punishment to the existing system

scooby Posted on 14/11/2008 13:17
death penalty yes

No, that's not how it works.

Kiszko was told in 83 he could not apply for any further appeal but was allowed to and released 10 years later. You'd have killed him in 83.

gibbos_left_boot Posted on 14/11/2008 13:31
death penalty yes

the law on murder is a mess at the moment, so there is no way the death penalty could be introduced.


JonMc Posted on 14/11/2008 13:33
death penalty yes

The process was that they were found guilty on the basis of scientific evidence. Basically it said that one cot death could be 'accidental' but multiple cot deaths in the same family were not possible. That 'scientific' evidence was later found to be flawed. It was not a process of appeal.

borobuddah Posted on 14/11/2008 13:43
death penalty yes

No

joshie Posted on 14/11/2008 13:46
death penalty yes

Yes, without hesitation, child molesters and heinous murder. You have to break some eggs to make an ommelette and if one or two innocent people are executed for the removal of hundreds or thousands of the scum of society then so be it.

Advances in techonology, dna testing etc would reduce the number of innocents to a minute fraction of the overall numbers I would happily see executed and society would be a safer place for it.

The 'what if it was you or one of your family' stance will no doubt be put on here, well I have faith that even if wrongly convicted I would be able to prove my or their innocence on appeal so it wouldn't worry me.

trannyterry Posted on 14/11/2008 13:55
death penalty yes

shame this topic attracts thick, daft coonts like rodney_trotter and joshie.

maybe we should execute dumb F*****s like these two and make society better.

jiffy Posted on 14/11/2008 13:59
death penalty yes

Joshie is right when he says that recent technological advances DNA in particular would reduce the instances of wrong convictions leading to the innocent being executed to the very rare.

But there is also the jury factor. Any jury would be composed of peopel just like us on this board whoa re split between whether there shoudl eb a death penalty or not and that could taint their decision making.

Further up this thread Italked about a case in the Isle of Man around 1990.

There the jury were not asked just a straght guilty ior not guilty with a guilty verdict carrying the death penalty.

They were given 3 choices:

1 Guilty of 1st degree murder carrying a possible death penalty
2 Not guilty of 1st degree murder but guilty of a 2nd degree murder carrying a maximum penalty less than execution (effectively whatw e might call manslaughter)
3 Not guilty

They chose the middle option.

effectively the jury were given the option to say guilty but it doesnt warrant execution.

Maybe that is the way forward.

joshie Posted on 14/11/2008 14:06
death penalty yes

Terence, I voiced an opinion on a subject, at no stage did I resort to pathetic insults.

trannyterry Posted on 14/11/2008 14:08
death penalty yes

The thick coont has spoken!

littlejimmy Posted on 14/11/2008 14:30
death penalty yes

DNA evidence just isn't the foolproof method that some people seem to think it is.

One mistake is too many.
It doesn't work as a deterrent.
It doesn't right any wrong.
No. No. No.




Link: DNA evidence.

Muttley Posted on 14/11/2008 15:03
death penalty yes

Is killing another human being wrong?

Yes

What makes it right if it is authorised and ritualised by "authority"?

Nothing

boro999 Posted on 14/11/2008 15:09
death penalty yes

death penalty = yes in cut and dry situation.

but also LIFE should mean LIFE. non of this ill be out after 8 year sh1t. no comfort,no rights,no privilages. jail should be jail not a fooking holiday camp. basic food,1 hour yard time and 23hours in a cell to think about what you have done.. end of...

joshie Posted on 14/11/2008 15:10
death penalty yes

Someone who molests children, ruining their lives loses any right to be considered part of the human race and needs removing so that he cant possibly harm another child and doesnt serve as a living reminder to the children and their parents.

SplendidStuff Posted on 14/11/2008 15:13
death penalty yes

littlejimmy, wasting your time fella.

These people with their opinions formed on scientific processes they have very little understanding off.

They care enough for revenge but dont care enough to actually read enough about DNA testing to realise its not foolproof.

joshie Posted on 14/11/2008 15:17
death penalty yes

Perhaps you should read things a little more carefully SS, at no stage did I say that DNA testing is foolproof. I did say that some small minority of innocent people may end up suffering.

I think it is a price worth paying for the greater good.

SplendidStuff Posted on 14/11/2008 15:20
death penalty yes

Well then you are thicker than i thought.

What a barbaric place it would be, innocent people being slaughtered by the state to satisfy the urges of people like you.

As we have already dicussed, its not a deterant and people would continue to carry out these crimes.

trannyterry Posted on 14/11/2008 15:23
death penalty yes

joshie once again sums up the thick coont he is!

He's prepared to see innocent people be executed by the state for the reintroduction of capital punishment but doesn't want to see innocent members of the public be killed and expects the perpetrators to be executed.

So if an innocent is executed by mistake do you expect the executioner to be executed?

I wonder how he'd feel when it was him or one of his kids executed by mistake - probably nothing the apathetic, inhuman tvvat!

It's fair to say that no one can ever give a valid argument for capital punishment especially retards like joshie who aren't very bright.

joshie Posted on 14/11/2008 15:23
death penalty yes

Its not to satisfy any urge it is to remove those people from society that have no right to be in it and i think it could be a deterant if properly used.

Any person who abuses a child loses any right to live.

Edit: childish name-calling is obviously the mark of a towering intellect I take it?

SplendidStuff Posted on 14/11/2008 15:25
death penalty yes

ITS NOT A DETERANT FFS.

Are you getting this joshie, it does not work.

The_same_as_before Posted on 14/11/2008 15:27
death penalty yes

Why the need for personal insults, nothing wrong with varied views.

The issue in this case, is that there is no doubt that the 3 adults found guilty decided to break a babies back, pull out the finger nails and bite part of it's ear off.

What do you recomend as punishment?

40 years in a prison? still enjoying din dins, TV etc..

trannyterry Posted on 14/11/2008 15:29
death penalty yes

SS he's obviously on a wind up. Thick gits like him will never understand, I'm surprised he hasn't rolled out the "why should my taxes pay for 'em" line yet.

Also what this retard doesn't understand that if hypothetically it were reintroduced, rapists and paedos wouldn't be executed.

Let joshie mouth off like the internet hard man he wants to be he'll never get what he wants so let us just laugh at him.

kazza Posted on 14/11/2008 15:30
death penalty yes

Any person who abuses a child loses any right to live.
i am with you joshie

joshie Posted on 14/11/2008 15:30
death penalty yes

Typing in capitals makes no difference to your repetitive comment SS, I personally believe it would deter some child molesters if properly introduced and implemented. If it stoppped a small proportion(which would be a much greater number than the minute possibile innocents wrongly executed) of them it would be a success in my opinion.

SplendidStuff Posted on 14/11/2008 15:30
death penalty yes

This is ridiculous.


If you dont agree with the death penalty you get branded a liberal who does not feel disgusted with crimes like this.

I would keep these people incarcerated for life, but do i think killing them will make any difference, no.

The_same_as_before Posted on 14/11/2008 15:32
death penalty yes

'incarcerated for life', in what conditions?

trannyterry Posted on 14/11/2008 15:32
death penalty yes

Well it'll never be for morons like you to decide kazza so un-fooking-lucky!

trannyterry Posted on 14/11/2008 15:34
death penalty yes

joshie how would it deter child molesters when their crimes would never even be considered for the death penalty?

SplendidStuff Posted on 14/11/2008 15:35
death penalty yes

Problem here is i dont run a prison, have never been in one, and would wager many of you have not so i could not comment on the conditions as i dont take sensationalist media into account.

How to run a prison and get the best results in reform or punishment again i dont know.

What i do know is that the day innocent people get karted off to their death to satisfy revenge, then its a very sad day.

joshie Posted on 14/11/2008 15:37
death penalty yes

I voice an opinion, your retort is to denigrate my intelligience and make wildly inaccurate assumptions, people may disagree with my opinion which I have no problem with, they even might find it ridiculous but I, at least, havent had to stoop to your level of childish insult.

"Also what this retard doesn't understand that if hypothetically it were reintroduced, rapists and paedos wouldn't be executed."

If it was 'hypothetically introduced' then surely in a hypothetical situation it could be introduced for these offences?

boro999 Posted on 14/11/2008 15:40
death penalty yes

ok whats your opinion if it is 100% that the person did the crime/terrible things, so innocent people arnt involved! is it still wrong to put them to death?

SplendidStuff Posted on 14/11/2008 15:40
death penalty yes

Joshie you cannot be that bothered about justice and human beings if you honestly think that its ok for a few innocents to be put to death.

Disgusting.


boro999 do catch up, we have been over that a million times, you cannot always be 100%.

trannyterry Posted on 14/11/2008 15:41
death penalty yes

It would never be considered for those offences.

I think I'll just sit back and laugh at how thick you are knowing full well that want you want will never happen and that no one will ever give a shyt what you thick should happen.

HAHAHAHNHAHAHAHhAHAAAHHAHHAHAAAHAHHA!

The_same_as_before Posted on 14/11/2008 15:42
death penalty yes

Splendid, of course you can.

SplendidStuff Posted on 14/11/2008 15:43
death penalty yes

Oh really tsab?

Do enlighten me.

joshie Posted on 14/11/2008 15:44
death penalty yes

Well put Terry, your a credit to your side of this discussion.

boro999 Posted on 14/11/2008 15:44
death penalty yes

im saying if it was 100% is it wrong


(i cant be arsed to read all the dribble above)

SplendidStuff Posted on 14/11/2008 15:44
death penalty yes

Remember that Dr.Higgs scenario, imagine all the dead innocent parents from boro.

edit. boro999 if you cannot be arsed to read the contents of the thread to understand what we are discussing and what has been discussed then you arent much use in this debate.

joshie Posted on 14/11/2008 15:47
death penalty yes

Except that Dr Higgs, wasnt judge AND jury in a crown court on an execution case.

SplendidStuff Posted on 14/11/2008 15:48
death penalty yes

Your point being exactly?

As far as im aware people are not arrested, investigated and detained by a judge or jury.

trannyterry Posted on 14/11/2008 15:49
death penalty yes

joshie, give over, your opinions are folly and you're clearly a unhinged, mentally deranged individual.

The state want to be investigate cranks like you who lust for the blood of people. You're another Thomas Hamilton in the making.

Fooking nutter!

SplendidStuff Posted on 14/11/2008 15:49
death penalty yes

It is annoying and ridiculous that people dont give this any real thought at all.

boro999 Posted on 14/11/2008 15:50
death penalty yes

yeh so i am asking in a case where it was 100% no question that the person did the crime is it wrong for them to be put to death?

SplendidStuff Posted on 14/11/2008 15:51
death penalty yes

ffs, how is it 100% ?

jesus h christ.


Some clever ones here, you should be a detective.

scooby Posted on 14/11/2008 15:52
death penalty yes

People just don't get it, the law does not have a section on "100% he did it"

bear66 Posted on 14/11/2008 15:53
death penalty yes

No - not as long as we have the adversarial system where each party only represents their side. The police should be totally neutral trying as hard to gather evidence to prove someone is innocent as well as trying to prove someone is guilty, as they can gain access to information that the common man hasn't.

trannyterry Posted on 14/11/2008 15:55
death penalty yes

What purpose does putting them to death serve and are you really arrogant enough to think that someone has a right to decide who dies?

boro999 Posted on 14/11/2008 15:55
death penalty yes

you thick tw@t im saying IF its was 100%
im not talking about any case in particular just
IF A CASE WAS 100% NO QUESTIONS THAT THE PERSON DID IT IS IT WRONG TO PUT THEM TO DEATH?


jesus ill draw you a picture next!

captain5 Posted on 14/11/2008 15:56
death penalty yes

We might as well add this to the mixer........


If we did bring back the death penalty, think of all the money we'd save from having kept people in prison.

SplendidStuff Posted on 14/11/2008 15:56
death penalty yes

fook me we got a dense one here.

Listen you thick bastad i cant make myself any more clear on the 100% bollox.

boro999 Posted on 14/11/2008 16:01
death penalty yes

right so if somone stands in the middle of the street infront of 100 people and shoots somone in the face, the police come round the corner and arrest him still holding the gun covered in blood and shouting `it was me`

is that not 100% proof the person did it? and if so should he be put to death? thats all im asking?

Way_Out_West Posted on 14/11/2008 16:02
death penalty yes

No cos, they'd plead guilty and wouldn't be considered for death penalty.

trannyterry Posted on 14/11/2008 16:02
death penalty yes

yeah captain5, and imagine all the money, tax payers money, that would be spent on appeals and everything that goes with carrying out an execution or did you think it was done for free?

captain5 Posted on 14/11/2008 16:04
death penalty yes

Hmmm, I think if you look back to my post of 11.56 you'll see where I stand on the issue.

SplendidStuff Posted on 14/11/2008 16:05
death penalty yes

boro999 i will humour you.

No i would not murder them.

However are you then telling me that you would only sentence people in that scenario?

How many witnesses does there have to be?

What if the witnesses are criminals themselves?

What if there are no witnesses?

The_same_as_before Posted on 14/11/2008 16:08
death penalty yes

I have recently been a prosecuting witness in a Crown Court case, the bloke was found guilty. I can confirm that the jury were 100% correct, no doubts, no ifs and buts, 100% guilty.

boro999 Posted on 14/11/2008 16:11
death penalty yes

ok so you would not put them to death.. thats all i asked jesus that was hard..

so what would your punishment be then for somone who blaitently and intentionally killed somone?

(hope you can answer this one a bit easyer)

boro999 Posted on 14/11/2008 16:14
death penalty yes

I have recently been a prosecuting witness in a Crown Court case, the bloke was found guilty. I can confirm that the jury were 100% correct, no doubts, no ifs and buts, 100% guilty.

"yeh but there is no 100% apparently so i think the jury must have been in on it and criminals them selfs"

lol

SplendidStuff Posted on 14/11/2008 16:14
death penalty yes

I had an aunty murdered and the bloke was caught and convicted. I missed her but did not bay for blood, she was gone and he was serving time.

the 100% issue is you saying that if you were 100% sure what would you do, and in your ridiculous scenario its easily proven, but we are talking about the introduction of capital punishment so im not quite sure what you would do in a more complex situation, but you probably have not given that much thought......

boro999 Posted on 14/11/2008 16:19
death penalty yes

i was only talking in a 100% (probably fictional case) i know there are a million and one factors to consider in other cases but i am saying 100% cases.

how do you stand on the execution of sadam then?

SplendidStuff Posted on 14/11/2008 16:19
death penalty yes

was that bloke getting sentenced to death b999 ?

You know nothing of the case and completely miss the point that when killing someone in the name of justice its usually not a simple scenario as you provide.

SplendidStuff Posted on 14/11/2008 16:21
death penalty yes

History shows us that the legal system gets things wrong, would you accept that statement?

Muttley Posted on 14/11/2008 16:21
death penalty yes

It is wrong to kill, no corollaries in the bible (just for example)

TeessideCleveland Posted on 14/11/2008 19:35
death penalty yes

1 'Kiszko was told in 83 he could not apply for any further appeal but was allowed to and released 10 years later. You'd have killed him in 83'
Why do those in favour of the death penalty never answer questions on this poor man's story?

2 What deterrant has the death penalty had in the USA?

3 When murderers etc kill themselves the phrase 'he/she took the easy way out' is used
Do those favouring the death penalty feel this way?
If so why as that saves the cost?
Is it not just revenge/taste for blood?

4 Killers should serve their sentence and be incarcerated -

hopefully in misery , not be allowed to escape with a quick death

5 One mistake is too many

6 Ronald Castree - Lesley Molseed's killer - would not have been caught had Kiszcko hanged in 1975

joshie Posted on 14/11/2008 19:42
death penalty yes

TC would you allow convicted killers to be released upon completion of sentence?

TeessideCleveland Posted on 14/11/2008 19:44
death penalty yes

I would not have a 'completion of sentence' as I would have them in for life
Completion would be when they die - in prison

joshie Posted on 14/11/2008 19:45
death penalty yes

Fair enough, would you allow paedophiles release from prison?

TeessideCleveland Posted on 14/11/2008 19:54
death penalty yes

No - never
This is why I oppose 'Sarah's Law' - because it is based on the assumption that they will be released at some point - which they never should be
Therefore there would be no need for it