Jamie Varley has just been sentanced to an indefinate life term, this means he will never be released at 37 it will cost hundreds of thousands of pounds to keep this Monster in jail. There are roughly 97,500 prisoners in the jail system now, there are only 70 monsters on indefinate life sentances that will never be released. This only my opinion but they serve no purpose to Civilisation and will never be released. The Hundreds of thousands of pounds spent on these could be used on better purposes beneficial to the UK. So these should have there life ended once convicted. As there just a drain of tax payers money.

1 hour ago, Look Chang said:

In a civilized country, officials who carry out death sentences should be prosecuted for murder.

Why? Countries with the lowest murder rates have the death penalty.

I wonder if look Chang would have the same thoughts if his baby was raped and killed by a Monster.

1 hour ago, BarraMarra said:

Jamie Varley has just been sentanced to an indefinate life term, this means he will never be released at 37 it will cost hundreds of thousands of pounds to keep this Monster in jail. There are roughly 97,500 prisoners in the jail system now, there are only 70 monsters on indefinate life sentances that will never be released. This only my opinion but they serve no purpose to Civilisation and will never be released. The Hundreds of thousands of pounds spent on these could be used on better purposes beneficial to the UK. So these should have there life ended once convicted. As there just a drain of tax payers money.

It's hard to argue that he doesn't deserve death, and the nastier the better. Unbelievably horrific.

But at the end of the day it is a question of whether the state should have the right to put people to death. For me that's a clear "no". And it has to be a "no" in every case, unfortunately.

12 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

It's hard to argue that he doesn't deserve death, and the nastier the better. Unbelievably horrific.

But at the end of the day it is a question of whether the state should have the right to put people to death. For me that's a clear "no". And it has to be a "no" in every case, unfortunately.

States kill people in war, what is the difference?

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

States kill people in war, what is the difference?

If you are attacked by a foreign aggressor you have the right to fight back.

That is very different from a government having the right to put its own civilians to death in peace time. This is not a right I want my government to have.

The difference is obvious, but hey, it's just Yellowtail being Yellowtail trying to be obtuse and drag conversations in directions they were never intended.

Edited June 20Jun 20 by josephbloggs

3 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

If you are attacked by a foreign aggressor you have the right to fight back.

That is very different from a government having the right to put its own civilians to death in peace time. This is not a right I want my government to have.

The difference is obvious, but hey, it's just Yellowtail being Yellowtail trying to be obtuse and drag conversations in directions they were never intended.

If an illegal alien kills a citizen, would that not be a foreign aggressor that the state has the right to "fight back"?

You are entitled to your opinion, just like you are free to believe the death penalty is not a deterrent, but that is also just an opinion, and the facts do not bear that out.

Singapore and Japan have about the lowest murder rates in the world, and they both have the death penalty.

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

If an illegal alien kills a citizen, would that not be a foreign aggressor that the state has the right to "fight back"?

You are entitled to your opinion, just like you are free to believe the death penalty is not a deterrent, but that is also just an opinion, and the facts do not bear that out.

Singapore and Japan have about the lowest murder rates in the world, and they both have the death penalty.

Correlation is not causation. They have very very low crime rates but no death penalty for general crime. Therefore the lack of a death penalty causes low crime. Not many people speed there - and I know you like the speeding analogy - but there is no death penalty for speeding, therefore not having the death penalty decreases speeding. This is the strength of your argument.

Switzerland has low murder rates and high gun ownership. Therefore high gun ownership causes low murder rates. There's another similar argument to yours. It is nonsense.

Canada had the death penalty then abolished it. Murder rates actually declined afterwards, although of course that is not due to the abolition. However you would expect them to increase, no? Because it was such a deterrent?

The UK had the death penalty and then got rid of it. There was no spike in murders. Same as most European countries that continue to have low murder rates. America has very high murder rates and the death penalty in many states.

Of course it is impossible to prove one way or the other, but circumstantial evidence is pretty clear if you look what happened to countries or states that once had it then got rid of it.

You have stated your opinion now stop trying to disrupt it trying to get into an Argument with Yellowtail, so you get the thread derailed and it ends up a slagging contest.

22 minutes ago, BarraMarra said:

You have stated your opinion now stop trying to disrupt it trying to get into an Argument with Yellowtail, so you get the thread derailed and it ends up a slagging contest.

Hit the "Quote" button when you reply, please, it makes it so much easier to know who you are talking to. But I assume it is me.

Butt out. We're having a discussion. No insults. You started a thread on whether we should reintroduce the death penalty. Did you not? And me and Yellowtail are debating whether the death penalty is any use as a deterrent or whether it has value.

How is that derailing the thread exactly?

Ah, got it. You want the death penalty because it's in the bible. I don't want it, and you don't like people disagreeing with you, even though I am not actually talking to you directly. Although I did reply to you earlier agreeing that it's easy to let emotions take over and hard to argue this guy doesn't deserve death.

And to think of the threads you disrupt with calling people "R Soles" or telling them to "FO".

stop being a Rick your derailing it hoping for bite. and as your being your Sanctimoniouse self name someone i disagreed with.

Edited June 20Jun 20 by BarraMarra

17 hours ago, josephbloggs said:

Correlation is not causation. They have very very low crime rates but no death penalty for general crime. Therefore the lack of a death penalty causes low crime. Not many people speed there - and I know you like the speeding analogy - but there is no death penalty for speeding, therefore not having the death penalty decreases speeding. This is the strength of your argument.

Switzerland has low murder rates and high gun ownership. Therefore high gun ownership causes low murder rates. There's another similar argument to yours. It is nonsense.

Canada had the death penalty then abolished it. Murder rates actually declined afterwards, although of course that is not due to the abolition. However you would expect them to increase, no? Because it was such a deterrent?

The UK had the death penalty and then got rid of it. There was no spike in murders. Same as most European countries that continue to have low murder rates. America has very high murder rates and the death penalty in many states.

Of course it is impossible to prove one way or the other, but circumstantial evidence is pretty clear if you look what happened to countries or states that once had it then got rid of it.

Correlation is not causation, but your MO is generally to pretend correlation is causation every chance you get.

Almost half of murders in the US go unsolved, the average time a convict spends on death row in the US prior to execution is over 20 years, and less than one in six convicts that are condemned to death are ultimately executed. That does not send much of a message that if you kill you will die.

Now you say it is not possible to prove either way, but before you stated: "Well the evidence clearly shows that the death penalty is no deterrent whatsoever", so which is it?

It is possible to prove either way. If littering were punishable by death, would fewer people litter?

Virtually every inmate on death row it fighting to get life in prison. Is that not an indication that death is worse than life in prison?

To be clear, I am against the death penalty, but to pretend it in not a deterrent is insanity.

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Correlation is not causation, but your MO is generally to pretend correlation is causation every chance you get.

Almost half of murders in the US go unsolved, the average time a convict spends on death row in the US prior to execution is over 20 years, and less than one in six convicts that are condemned to death are ultimately executed. That does not send much of a message that if you kill you will die.

Now you say it is not possible to prove either way, but before you stated: "Well the evidence clearly shows that the death penalty is no deterrent whatsoever", so which is it?

It is possible to prove either way. If littering were punishable by death, would fewer people litter?

Virtually every inmate on death row it fighting to get life in prison. Is that not an indication that death is worse than life in prison?

To be clear, I am against the death penalty, but to pretend it in not a deterrent is insanity.

Wait for his half page reply Yellowtale. You will not get a direct answer to your question from him.

1 minute ago, BarraMarra said:

Wait for his half page reply Yellowtale. You will not get a direct answer to your question from him.

Yeah, like all leftists, he'll do anything but answer honestly,

7 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Correlation is not causation, but your MO is generally to pretend correlation is causation every chance you get.

Almost half of murders in the US go unsolved, the average time a convict spends on death row in the US prior to execution is over 20 years, and less than one in six convicts that are condemned to death are ultimately executed. That does not send much of a message that if you kill you will die.

Now you say it is not possible to prove either way, but before you stated: "Well the evidence clearly shows that the death penalty is no deterrent whatsoever", so which is it?

It is possible to prove either way. If littering were punishable by death, would fewer people litter?

Virtually every inmate on death row it fighting to get life in prison. Is that not an indication that death is worse than life in prison?

To be clear, I am against the death penalty, but to pretend it in not a deterrent is insanity.

I said the evidence points to it, and it does. But it is impossible to prove 100%. However, as I listed, the evidence is there.

Not going to answer the same questions over and over as I already answered your speeding one. Now you've changed it to littering so if I answer it again you'll change it to parking on double yellows.

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Yeah, like all leftists, he'll do anything but answer honestly,

Again, childish, playground stuff.

Oh there's no need for this violence from the fascist establishment

Many people end up changing their lives once they come out of prison

I remember a few years ago live on WhatsApp group they were standing outside a prison in Texas protesting silently against the early morning execution

I was in absolute tears and ended up ringing the prison , I think it was in Texas

A person did answer and I told them to stop the execution,they hung up on me

But stop this barbaric act

Thats fair enough Georgegeorgia thats your feelings, but id summise that most on this forum would be only to happy to see the Monster that Murdered and sexually assaulted a 15 month old child, or a Terroist that detonated a bomb killing over 20 kids at a pop concert. Do these need to be detained for life in Prison or just have there own life took away.

5 minutes ago, BarraMarra said:

Thats fair enough Georgegeorgia thats your feelings, but id summise that most on this forum would be only to happy to see the Monster that Murdered and sexually assaulted a 15 month old child, or a Terroist that detonated a bomb killing over 20 kids at a pop concert. Do these need to be detained for life in Prison or just have there own life took away.

5 minutes ago, BarraMarra said:

Thats fair enough Georgegeorgia thats your feelings, but id summise that most on this forum would be only to happy to see the Monster that Murdered and sexually assaulted a 15 month old child, or a Terroist that detonated a bomb killing over 20 kids at a pop concert. Do these need to be detained for life in Prison or just have there own life took away.

Its a hard question to answer but they certainly need counselling and behaviour therapy

Edited June 21Jun 21 by georgegeorgia

Some cannot be Counselled. We have a prisoner now who has been the longest serving prisoner ever in the UK he did not commit a Murder but for the lenghe of his jail term he can not be released into the population. Some murders are accidents some through crimes of passion i would not give them a death sentance. In my opinion Beasts and monsters are different.

33 minutes ago, BarraMarra said:

Some cannot be Counselled. We have a prisoner now who has been the longest serving prisoner ever in the UK he did not commit a Murder but for the lenghe of his jail term he can not be released into the population. Some murders are accidents some through crimes of passion i would not give them a death sentance. In my opinion Beasts and monsters are different.

Oh don't be so heartless

2 hours ago, josephbloggs said:

I said the evidence points to it, and it does. But it is impossible to prove 100%. However, as I listed, the evidence is there.

Not going to answer the same questions over and over as I already answered your speeding one. Now you've changed it to littering so if I answer it again you'll change it to parking on double yellows.

Again, childish, playground stuff.

No, be honest for a change. You did not say tat the evidence points to it, you said: "Well the evidence clearly shows that the death penalty is no deterrent whatsoever".

You can't answer the question, because you know that if speeding and littering were punishable by death, fewer people would speed and litter.

What a phony you are.

37 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

No, be honest for a change. You did not say tat the evidence points to it, you said: "Well the evidence clearly shows that the death penalty is no deterrent whatsoever".

You can't answer the question, because you know that if speeding and littering were punishable by death, fewer people would speed and litter.

What a phony you are.

Ok. Let's argue semantics. No thanks.

You haven't replied to one of my points. Not one. You just argue purely on semantics. The sign of someone who has nothing.

Anyway, what about men in womens' showers and trans people? You haven't mentioned those for a post or two now.

Hows your DEBATE going with Yellowtail remember this

Butt out. We're having a discussion. No insults. You started a thread on whether we should reintroduce the death penalty. Did you not? And me and Yellowtail are debating whether the death penalty is any use as a deterrent or whether it has value.

This is your latest post, and your seriouse you want to debate joeblogs ? your the one with nothing to offer exept dragging up old posts.

You haven't replied to one of my points. Not one. You just argue purely on semantics. The sign of someone who has nothing.

Anyway, what about men in womens' showers and trans people? You haven't mentioned those for a post or two now.

45 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

Ok. Let's argue semantics. No thanks.

You haven't replied to one of my points. Not one. You just argue purely on semantics. The sign of someone who has nothing.

Anyway, what about men in womens' showers and trans people? You haven't mentioned those for a post or two now.

Ahh, semantics. Phony,

What are your "points" other than: "Well the evidence clearly shows that the death penalty is no deterrent whatsoever", and I think I have shown how ridiculous a statement that is.

You show correlation, pretend it is causation and claim you've made a "point".

Pease provide any evidence to support your false claim that "...the evidence clearly shows that the death penalty is no deterrent whatsoever". You can't, because it's a ridiculous lie.

The only difference between the death penalty and true life in prison with no parole is one is state sponsored murder. Both eliminate the problem. Nuff said.

1 minute ago, mikebike said:

The only difference between the death penalty and true life in prison with no parole is one is state sponsored murder. Both eliminate the problem. Nuff said.

What is the problem?

On 6/19/2026 at 9:08 AM, Purdey said:

The death penalty is an emotive subject. People would assume that anyone who is given the death penalty really did it.

If you know the reason the death penalty was ended in the UK you will know that the person who actually shot a policeman in Croydon was not executed because he was a minor and walked free after a few years. Instead, his friend, who was on the scene but killed no one, was hung because he was not a minor.

You raise the case of Derek Bentley but you don't mention Timothy Evans who was completely innocent and not involved in any sort of crime.

Miscarriage's of justice did occur but the last one was in 1952 a long time ago. These days this won't happen anymore so its no good bringing up these cases that were over 70 years ago. The question asked should baby killers terroists, serial killers be executed for there crimes.

9 hours ago, BarraMarra said:

Miscarriage's of justice did occur but the last one was in 1952 a long time ago. These days this won't happen anymore so its no good bringing up these cases that were over 70 years ago. The question asked should baby killers terroists, serial killers be executed for there crimes.

But most criminals vote left, so we can't be killing them.

Don't start bringing leftisms in this Yellowtail please you will only get JB on your case.