after reading one case today where 4 people where convicted of stabbing someone 24 times in 45 seconds, being convicted with CCTV evidence, Witness Evidence and DNA Evidence, and without any doubt commited the crime, should these animals not just be put down? , it will cost the taxpayers millions to detain them and for what , to re-offend when they are released in 15 years time? ......

story - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2102130/Daniel-Graham-murder-Gangsters-Jordan-Williams-Colin-Aghatise-Lennie-John-jailed-life.html

also, another shocking story today , although not found guilty YET, if this lady did, without a shadow of doubt, commit what she is accused of, it is in the public interest she is put to death !

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2101409/Casey-Kearney-Hannah-Bonser-26-charged-murder-Doncaster-stabbing.html

i am not so keen on the death penalty for poultry cases , but horrific murder should only be punished with one sentance, ( but ONLY in cases where by it is a clean cut case ) but saying this, this could also open a new chapter, what is a clean cut case of guilt to a murder?

Don't you think that the death sentence for interfering with chickens is a bit OTT?

Don't you think that the death sentence for interfering with chickens is a bit OTT?

just like adultery? or believing in another religion ? being Gay ? the list could go on ... all OTT for the Death Sentence and inhumane , but thank you for bringing up a grammer error in my post ! .. but i think you knew what i ment

Don't you think that the death sentence for interfering with chickens is a bit OTT?

just like adultery? or believing in another religion ? being Gay ? the list could go on ... all OTT for the Death Sentence and inhumane , but thank you for bringing up a grammer error in my post ! .. but i think you knew what i ment

So what has Islam got to do with me pointing out a spelling (rather than a grammar) mistake? You ought to lay off the Daily Mail for a week or two. Try reading a newspaper instead.

Thank you for your post , you have just answered a debate question with my younger brother at Oxford ... Spot on chap !

Care to tell us what the question is? Or is it a big fraternal secret?

Hang 'em high !!

A public hanging used to be a great spectacle. String 'em up, but take care not to break the neck. As they choke, they piss and shit themselves. Then the hangman rips out the bowels, and burns them in front of the victim. Need I go on?

Because some people are barbaric, that does not mean the state has to be barbaric in return. Even the so-called humane methods of euthanasia are barbaric, because nobody has the right to take away another person's life, except in self-defence.

Having gone all moral and said that, and I believe what I said, what on earth do you do with such people? Someone I knew was hacked to death in her own kitchen by a robber; if they'd caught him, I would have been hard put to it to be merciful.

Hang 'em high !!

Seconded

Hang 'em high !!

Seconded

Hang 'em high !!

Seconded

Thirded.........

Thank you for your post , you have just answered a debate question with my younger brother at Oxford ... Spot on chap !

I think what endure was alluding to might have been to call into question someone attending Oxford University reading the Daily Mail.

what is a clean cut case of guilt to a murder?

However, a clean cut case:

Would the indiscriminate murder of 21 people and injuries to a multitude of others constitute the death penalty, if beyond doubt?

The UK court authorities went through one trial, one attempted appeal refused and two full appeals until the original decision was discredited.

Almost certain Death Penalty and 16/17 years in jail resulted

On one appeal the Judge stated ( from memory) that the original decision had to be safe, or it would call into question the whole judicial system of the the UK,

One case but there are many miscarriages of justice, the Death Penalty serves no justice and can only exacerbate a persons reason for either further excess or the final reason never to give up.

The answer is no to the Death Penalty

So what has Islam got to do with me pointing out a spelling (rather than a grammar) mistake? You ought to lay off the Daily Mail for a week or two. Try reading a newspaper instead.

The answer is no to the Death Penalty

There are many cases where murderers get released from prison, only to murder again. The death penalty is useful in preventing these crimes.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/534077-florida-executes-elderly-man-for-brutal-rape-murder-in-1980/page__view__findpost__p__5061649

The answer is no to the Death Penalty

There are many cases where murderers get released from prison, only to murder again. The death penalty is useful in preventing these crimes.

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__5061649

This is no argument at all for the death penalty; all it says is that murderers should be given longer sentences (life which means life).

I've never been a fan of the death penalty. I'm not in favor of it and I wouldn't vote for it. I think twice about voting for people who are in favor of it, especially strongly in favor of it. But I've done some work in a prison, including with those convicted of murder.

Some of them are not very nice people and I just can't get my knickers in a knot over the issue.

The answer is no to the Death Penalty

There are many cases where murderers get released from prison, only to murder again. The death penalty is useful in preventing these crimes.

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__5061649

Are there also cases where murderers get released from prison and lead productive lives?

Perhaps we should introduce the death penalty for potential murderers, and prevent the crimes in the first place...

SC

Its a tough choice..and so I'll leave it to others to decide.

The answer is no to the Death Penalty

There are many cases where murderers get released from prison, only to murder again. The death penalty is useful in preventing these crimes.

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__5061649

This is no argument at all for the death penalty; all it says is that murderers should be given longer sentences (life which means life).

They get life in a place where they are fed 3 times/day, get free medical care, etc? F**** that. If they get life, make it in a dungeon prison out of The Count of Monte Cristo. If they want to eat, let family members on the outside bring them food every day. No family or friends? Too bad, shouldn't have committed the vicious crime in the first place. These animals deserve no compassion.

The answer is no to the Death Penalty

There are many cases where murderers get released from prison, only to murder again. The death penalty is useful in preventing these crimes.

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__5061649

This is no argument at all for the death penalty; all it says is that murderers should be given longer sentences (life which means life).

They get life in a place where they are fed 3 times/day, get free medical care, etc? F**** that. If they get life, make it in a dungeon prison out of The Count of Monte Cristo. If they want to eat, let family members on the outside bring them food every day. No family or friends? Too bad, shouldn't have committed the vicious crime in the first place. These animals deserve no compassion.

Compassion is a subjective property, not objective. We are compassionate for our benefit, not theirs.

Just as if we are spiteful, vengeful or intolerant.

Perhaps it would be better if we dungeoned some potential villains, by way of a deterrent to the rest?

SC

Compassion is a subjective property, not objective. We are compassionate for our benefit, not theirs.

Just as if we are spiteful, vengeful or intolerant.

Perhaps it would be better if we dungeoned some potential villains, by way of a deterrent to the rest?

SC

Quite agree with your first para, SC.

Nobody seems to have mentioned that introducing the death penalty would be a retrograde step. Over the years, compassionate people have fought for many things.... sexual equality under the law, abolition of the death penalty, female suffrage, abolition of slavery and so on. Nowadays the fight (or at least one of the fights) is for gay rights. We should be looking forward, not back.

I agree (and have already said it once) that the problem is what to do with such people. Nobody has yet solved this problem. We won't get anywhere by being vindictive, but we have to find a method which does at least the following:-

1. Ensures that they cannot escape.

2. Manages to avoid dehumanising the warders.

3. Gives humane care without frills.

Going back to the OP, I don't really see what is so horrific about the crime referenced.

Someone was stabbed to death by a gang. How is that different from any other gang murder?

I am far more appalled by the number of people maimed or killed in fights when there was no intent to kill, but one of the participants happened to be carrying a knife. In my view, the crime that shold be more harshly punished is not the brawling, but carrying the knife. Far more people are killed by unsafe behaviour than by malice

SC

The answer is no to the Death Penalty

There are many cases where murderers get released from prison, only to murder again. The death penalty is useful in preventing these crimes.

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__5061649

My thoughts exactly. Canada has a history of releasing repeat offenders who then go on to commit horrific crimes later. In those cases I believe the parole board should be made to take the place of the released murderer.

The answer is no to the Death Penalty

There are many cases where murderers get released from prison, only to murder again. The death penalty is useful in preventing these crimes.

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__5061649

My thoughts exactly. Canada has a history of releasing repeat offenders who then go on to commit horrific crimes later. In those cases I believe the parole board should be made to take the place of the released murderer.

Clearly the sentences given are too short. Your suggestion about the parole board is merely silly.

The answer is no to the Death Penalty

There are many cases where murderers get released from prison, only to murder again. The death penalty is useful in preventing these crimes.

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__5061649

My thoughts exactly. Canada has a history of releasing repeat offenders who then go on to commit horrific crimes later. In those cases I believe the parole board should be made to take the place of the released murderer.

Clearly the sentences given are too short. Your suggestion about the parole board is merely silly.

It gets back to the point about locking up potential criminals. People who have been in prison, and might commit crimes in the future, should be kept there, along with other potential villains who might commit crimes in the future. Let's face it: once a villain, always a villain, so why wait till the villains commit a crime? Prevention is better than cure - the latter being impossible in the case of murder.

SC

I'll have the potential-sarcasm-police after me at this rate...

I was at school with a murderer (well, he wasn't a murderer then!). We thought he was a bit odd, but you can't lock up everybody who's a bit odd. Mind you, I can think of a good many people who could be shut up to the great advantage of society as a whole. There might even be some on ThaiVisa!

I'm sure you and I wouldn't have to be shut up, SC (but I'm not so sure about you!).

I would think most people in prison could be rehabilitated under the right circumstances. Some are just beyond help. While there might be a tiny, tiny slimmer of hope to rehabilitate a vicious repeatmurderer, there is zero chance of rehabilitating child molesters. That's just the way their mind is wired ( call it their "sexual orientation") and it cannot be changed therefore they should never be released from prison.

On a side note, I wonder what percentage of people who think both that the death penalty for killers is inhuman and that abortion (especially partial birth) is fine.

I was at school with a murderer (well, he wasn't a murderer then!). We thought he was a bit odd, but you can't lock up everybody who's a bit odd. Mind you, I can think of a good many people who could be shut up to the great advantage of society as a whole. There might even be some on ThaiVisa!

I'm sure you and I wouldn't have to be shut up, SC (but I'm not so sure about you!).

For all you know I'm posting from Barlinnie.

I was at school with a murderer (well, he wasn't a murderer then!). We thought he was a bit odd, but you can't lock up everybody who's a bit odd. Mind you, I can think of a good many people who could be shut up to the great advantage of society as a whole. There might even be some on ThaiVisa!

I'm sure you and I wouldn't have to be shut up, SC (but I'm not so sure about you!).

For all you know I'm posting from Barlinnie.

What's for breakfast Three Fingers?

In all seriousness though its all about what ratio of punishment/rehabilitation/boredom you want to inflict.

Also how much money to spend. It all boils down to economics and politics really. Justice is a sham.

I was at school with a murderer (well, he wasn't a murderer then!). We thought he was a bit odd, but you can't lock up everybody who's a bit odd. Mind you, I can think of a good many people who could be shut up to the great advantage of society as a whole. There might even be some on ThaiVisa!

I'm sure you and I wouldn't have to be shut up, SC (but I'm not so sure about you!).

For all you know I'm posting from Barlinnie.

What's for breakfast Three Fingers?

In all seriousness though its all about what ratio of punishment/rehabilitation/boredom you want to inflict.

Also how much money to spend. It all boils down to economics and politics really. Justice is a sham.

You've been reading too much Hannibal Lecter (ugh)!

Back to the serious side. My murdering schoolmate, from what I know of his case, which is very little, could probably be rehabilitated.... but who decides who can be rehabilitated, and who can't? It seems to me that some mistakes are bound to be made.

Of course money comes into the equation, but there are moral issues as well. Justice is simply an attempt to rectify something which should never have gone wrong in the first place... but it does go off on some odd tangents.

The answer is no to the Death Penalty

There are many cases where murderers get released from prison, only to murder again. The death penalty is useful in preventing these crimes.

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__5061649

Did you read my whole post?

However in response to yours, of course the execution of a murderer will create the situation that he cannot murder again, but it really isn't as simple as that is it, particularly if they never committed the crime in the first place.

Should all thieves have their hand cut off, do it again and the second is off?

Anyone who covets anothers wife, should they have their eyes put out?

Anybody who pays for intercourse against the laws of the land, should they have the obvious deterrant?