Poll thing

[Access Denied]

Death sentence for premeditated murder and as in the case of Baby P, extreme child abuse.

Simple 2 answer poll, Yes or No. Vote and discuss!

 

[Calaen]

Shocking sentences for the scum of the earth, here was a perfect chance to send a message to the sumbags dragging up kids. If you hurt them, we will fuck you up so bad you'll wish your mother stayed a virgin.

All three of them should be punched to death in each others presence, fucking cowards. This whole case has shown how shit the system was and at the only real place where something can be done about it they fuck it up.

 

[nath]

If I'm shown evidence that it's cheaper to society and provides an actual deterrent to those who might commit the most violent crimes I might feel differently. As I understand, this isn't the case at all, so my vote is a no.

 

[- English -]

Cant answer that question with a yes or no.. too many factors to be considered

 

[Marc]

Ive always believed in an eye for an eye.

 

[Raven]

Cant answer that question with a yes or no.. too many factors to be considered

Like what? They killed a toddler, not only was he defenceless, he also couldn't tell anyone.

No I don't think in this case they should be executed, they should be put into the general population of a prison and every couple of days should be open season to all the head cases in there for a couple of hours.

 

[tris-]

Ship them to Venezuela!

 

[mooSe_]

There isn't much evidence to show that harsh punishments deter other criminals (although of course it is impossible to measure how many people you have deterred; all you have to go on is crime rates, which can be dependant on other factors).
If it is for the sake of revenge/punishment, then it's debatable whether death is the worst possible punishment.
Also, killing criminals doesn't really protect society any better than just locking them up does.
If it comes down to funds then it just seems ridiculous to me that human life (yes even that of criminals) is less worth than money.
This poll is clearly about a specific case of crime where rehabilitation probably isn't an option, however not always necessarily so, and I would rather see criminals reformed than killed.
I voted no.

 

[- English -]

Like what? They killed a toddler, not only was he defenceless, he also couldn't tell anyone.

No I don't think in this case they should be executed, they should be put into the general population of a prison and every couple of days should be open season to all the head cases in there for a couple of hours.

Lol, and what about all the innocent people that would be executed because of a mishap in justice (yes this has happened, but in England they have just been in jail not executed). You can say well don't execute unless 100% correct, although im pretty sure you can't be 100% correct. I'm all for the death penalty, just I don't think it is answerable to a yes and no question. Somethings I think are worthy of the death penalty, eg murder(an eye for an eye).

 

[Yoni]

To take anothers life in any circumstances is wrong so defiante no for me, there is no argument on this earth that could change this point of view, no matter what horrible crime has been commited.

 

[soze]

For these 3 a definite yes. People say death does not deter people but nor does prison and a bullet to brain would cost less than 10 years in prison.


As it stands my tax money will go to them being held in prison probably in better conditions than general population as they would probably get killed, And i would not be surprised if in 10 years more of my tax money is spent giving them a new identity house ect so they do not get hurt.

 

[Raven]

Somethings I think are worthy of the death penalty, eg murder(an eye for an eye).

This is murder and one of them has also been convicted of raping a two year old girl in a separate case.

 

[Zenith.UK]

Yes to execution for absolutely irrefutably proven murder with strong evidence.

If there's doubt in the evidence, but it was still proven to be the perpetrator, I suggest emasculation. Removes the urge and removes their ability to swim in the gene pool.

In fact emasculation would be a worthy deterrent to the vast majority of men.
"Don't break the law or we will fuck you up so you can't have kids ever again".

 

[mooSe_]

Deterrence doesn't often work on serious crimes like murder or rape because the criminal isn't in a position to make rational decisions in the same manner as another member of society, hence why they commit the crime. They either don't take into account the effects of their actions or they don't see them in perspective.

 

[Mabs]

i put yes
i would however settle for proper sentences, ie, you get life, you aint out till your 70, or done at least 40 years, or in some cases, you die in jail. not this "life", parole in 12 years rubbish

i know a lot of people, including mr pierrepoint himself, have said that capital punishment doesnt detter people, thats up for debate.

there is however one guaranteed factor.

people who are executed have a ZERO % re-offend rate.

and hanging someone is a lot cheaper than feeding, clothing, and guarding them for decades.

 

[Mabs]

and another thing

anyone remember the bulger case ?

well...

In June, 2001, after a six-month review of their case, the parole board determined the boys were no longer a public threat and made them eligible for release since their minimum sentence of eight years had expired

justice anyone ?

 

[megadave]

You can't make an exception just for this case, that's retarded.

 

[fettoken]

Some sort of minimum age for death penalty imo. ~30-35.

 

[nath]

For these 3 a definite yes. People say death does not deter people but nor does prison and a bullet to brain would cost less than 10 years in prison.

Only if you do away with appeals and the like. As I understand, execution when done in a fair and proper manner is *not* the cheaper option. I think it only would be if we had Judge Dredd walking around to decide who's guilty and execute them there and then.

If there's doubt in the evidence, but it was still proven to be the perpetrator, I suggest emasculation. Removes the urge and removes their ability to swim in the gene pool.

That would imply that child sexual abuse is purely linked to the labido, I'm sure I read somewhere that suggested that since it was a psychological disorder, chemical castration doesn't necessarily prevent further abuse.

and hanging someone is a lot cheaper than feeding, clothing, and guarding them for decades.

See above - I'm pretty sure it's not cheaper at all.

Nothing concrete, but:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty
http://www.nyadp.org/main/faq
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29552692/
http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42

Granted, these are all about the states, but they have the death penalty and we don't.

 

[soze]

Only if you do away with appeals and the like. As I understand, execution when done in a fair and proper manner is *not* the cheaper option. I think it only would be if we had Judge Dredd walking around to decide who's guilty and execute them there and then.

I would make it work that if someone is found guilty of premeditated murder (not manslaughter ect) or anything where torture is involved would give the Jury the option to reccomend the death penalty. If the trail Judge agrees he then sends it to a high court style 3 judge system who review it to a set of rules (DNA evidence that proves the case ect) and then hand down the death panlty or not.

I can not see that it would cost more than housing feeding and protecting these clowns for 10 years then paying to rehouse them when they get out.

 

[nath]

Well they have the death penalty in the states and the evidence shows that it's not cheaper to execute someone than keep them in prison for life. Are you fundamentally opposed to the appeals process? It strikes me you'd have to completely scrub the idea of appeals from the law in order to make something like this workable.

 

[soze]

Well they have the death penalty in the states and the evidence shows that it's not cheaper to execute someone than keep them in prison for life. Are you fundamentally opposed to the appeals process? It strikes me you'd have to completely scrub the idea of appeals from the law in order to make something like this workable.

Too a point the fact there are people who live 20 years before getting killed is insane. I would want to to go to the 3 judges who only OK the death penalty when the evidence DNA CCTV or what have you can not be explained away. Then there really is no need for an appeal.

If you set out to Murder someone you make a plan and you set about it and DNA or other non eyewitness evidence ties you to that crime you should die. Likewise for people like these who killed a child over a long period.

 

[nath]

If you set out to Murder someone you make a plan and you set about it and DNA or other non eyewitness evidence ties you to that crime you should die.

Why? I'm not trying to be obtuse, I'm just trying to be absolutely clear.

There's cost, which with the current legal system doesn't appear to be relevant. You're suggesting changes to that but that's another kettle of fish.
Deterrence, as far as I understand, research suggests that the death penalty isn't a deterrence to the most significant crimes for which it applies. So what specifically is it that makes you think the death penalty is the right way to go? I know that if someone so much as mugged someone close to me I'd want to do all manner of violent shit to them and it'd feel justified. That doesn't mean I think the law should reflect this.

So ultimately what specifically makes you/anyone think that it's a good idea?

 

[soze]

Why? I'm not trying to be obtuse, I'm just trying to be absolutely clear.

There's cost, which with the current legal system doesn't appear to be relevant. You're suggesting changes to that but that's another kettle of fish.
Deterrence, as far as I understand, research suggests that the death penalty isn't a deterrence to the most significant crimes for which it applies. So what specifically is it that makes you think the death penalty is the right way to go? I know that if someone so much as mugged someone close to me I'd want to do all manner of violent shit to them and it'd feel justified. That doesn't mean I think the law should reflect this.

So ultimately what specifically makes you/anyone think that it's a good idea?

Going to Jail does not scare people if it did there would be no murder. I do not see why someone who has killed someone else should get to live 10 years in relative comfort. Not saying jail is easy but at the end of the day you get 3 meals a day its always warm there are homeless people who would love that. Also why should they serve ten years then be let back out to maybe kill again when you could save money and kill them?

 

[nath]

Going to Jail does not scare people if it did there would be no murder. I do not see why someone who has killed someone else should get to live 10 years in relative comfort. Not saying jail is easy but at the end of the day you get 3 meals a day its always warm there are homeless people who would love that. Also why should they serve ten years then be let back out to maybe kill again when you could save money and kill them?

Well, currently it doesn't save money. If it's more expensive and provides no more deterrent than jail then why do it? The only other reason I can see is to make ourselves feel better that justice has been served. I'm not sure how valid that is - when you break the law you lose your right to freedom, I think that's about as far as it should go until we see more evidence to the benefits of execution.

Also, as to the cushy living conditions of inmates - Stazbumpa (a freddy that used to post a while back) is/was a prison guard and said that actually that's a load of rubbish. I don't know if he's speaking for all prisons, but I don't think it's as simple to say they get an easy life in prison.

 

[soze]

Well, currently it doesn't save money. If it's more expensive and provides no more deterrent than jail then why do it? The only other reason I can see is to make ourselves feel better that justice has been served. I'm not sure how valid that is - when you break the law you lose your right to freedom, I think that's about as far as it should go until we see more evidence to the benefits of execution.

Also, as to the cushy living conditions of inmates - Stazbumpa (a freddy that used to post a while back) is/was a prison guard and said that actually that's a load of rubbish. I don't know if he's speaking for all prisons, but I don't think it's as simple to say they get an easy life in prison.

Just look at knife crime if Prison was such a massive hard ship would kids carry knifes that risk 4 years in prison? So prison does not work shootings and stabbings are going up kids who come out of prison wear it as a badge of honour. The only real punishment in prison is not seeing your family and thats not really a problem for these 3 is it. With the crimes these people have commited they will not be in the middle of other hardcore prisioners or they would die they will be in segragation. And one big benefit to death is a 0% reconviction rate.

You look at these idiots they now get fed housed and protected for 10 years then when they are let out they might get a new identity. Plus 10 years inside for child torutre murder does not look good on the CV so they will prolly all just go on the dole. Another 50 years for paying for houses food protection and medical expenses or Death how if Death not the cheaper option?

 

[nath]

Just look at knife crime if Prison was such a massive hard ship would kids carry knifes that risk 4 years in prison? So prison does not work shootings and stabbings are going up kids who come out of prison wear it as a badge of honour. The only real punishment in prison is not seeing your family and thats not really a problem for these 3 is it. With the crimes these people have commited they will not be in the middle of other hardcore prisioners or they would die they will be in segragation. And one big benefit to death is a 0% reconviction rate.

You look at these idiots they now get fed housed and protected for 10 years then when they are let out they might get a new identity. Plus 10 years inside for child torutre murder does not look good on the CV so they will prolly all just go on the dole. Another 50 years for paying for houses food protection and medical expenses or Death how if Death not the cheaper option?

I'm just going by the stats presented from American cases - currently the death penalty *is* more expensive than a life sentence. The other points seem to argue against lenient sentencing, but that's not really the point I'm making. Life in prison vs the death penalty - I can't see any reason to suggest the death penalty. However if you're arguing death penalty vs a 10 year sentence, that's a little different.

The question of whether sentences are too lenient is a different matter. When talking about the death penalty we really should be comparing it to life in prison - as in, never getting out.

 

[Ch3tan]

There was a really long discussion about this in the general forum, you should read it, it will save nath having to make the same points over and over.

You cannot have a death penalty unless you have a perfect justice system free of errors. You cannot have a death penalty when it costs more to try to execute someone than it does to keep them in prison for the rest of their life.

As to Raven's point about letting the prison population 'sort them out', yes what they did was horrible, but what you are saying is that it is okay for people who are meant to be in rehabilitation to commit crimes as long as it is vengence against poeple whose crimes are more morally incorrect than their own. Great, bread more violent criminals, nice move.

 

[soze]

It is hard to compare the American Justice system to ours. If a Yank goes down for murder he can speend the rest of his life behind bars so being killed now to death behind bars in 80 years theres no major difference. What i mean is you can't say its does not deter based on America.

I think we should have the death penalty but not like the yanks where there are 5 levels of appeals and it can take 20 years to kill them. I think if a Jury calls down for the death Penalty it should go to a higher court who just look at hard evidence if the evidence supports it they sanction the death penalty.

Because Prison does not work and any killer who gets out of prison to kill again makes our legal system a joke.

 

[Ch3tan]

Soze, you are living in a fantasy world. We are part of the EU, like it or not, and there are lots of courts that someone could appeal to.