I fear the Death Penalty as the Thaivisa Moaning Pensioner Brigade will frame me, and I can't personally see the point of a posthumous pardon.

It really would interfere with my future plans, so I vote no.

I fear the Death Penalty as the Thaivisa Moaning Pensioner Brigade will frame me, and I can't personally see the point of a posthumous pardon.

It really would interfere with my future plans, so I vote no.

See? Entirely personal self-interest with no consideration of the moral or ethical issues. Its no wonder Ian Forbes is so cynical about entrepreneurs from the East End of Glasgow.

SC

Shouldn't the title be re-worded to 'reintroduce' the death penalty?

In my younger days it was a part of the British penal system and so was flogging.

I had ancestors who were hung, others who were transported to the colonies (a far worse sentence), but I am unaware of any forebear being flogged.

(If they were, I've not inherited any part of the selling price)

Definitely - the death penalty should be an option for murder, terrorism and like heinous crimes. I would extend it to those convicted of dealing commercial quantities of hard drugs (who, in my book, are dealers in misery and death both directly and indirectly).

Do you think public ridicule would be a suitable punishment for more minor misdemeanours?

I know what Ping means. I think people that sell alcohol to motorists, or high powered motorbikes to young men, or people that sell knives, or large quantities of fertiliser could be grouped in there as well...

SC

In the Eighteenth century, there were over 200 capital crimes... and for practically everything else a convict got transported. If you survived that (read Robert Hughes, The Fatal Shore), you became an Australian.

Those were the days.....

^^Oh dear SC, I don't normally bother with constructively invalid arguments, but in your case... On second thoughts, I can't really be bothered.

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.

I KNOW it's silly, but it's no less silly than releasing repeat offenders who a dozen psychologists have all said the criminal is almost certain to commit another and often worse crime. I have a very low opinion of the criminal justice system in Canada. I can't speak for other countries because I haven't lived in them long enough to see what is going on. But, it appears that in Canada it is a system meant to perpetuate the rotation of criminals through the courts time after time... and in so doing increase the salaries of those involved: judges, lawyers and police. Protecting the public seems to be the last thing on their minds.

In the Eighteenth century, there were over 200 capital crimes... and for practically everything else a convict got transported. If you survived that (read Robert Hughes, The Fatal Shore), you became an Australian.

I think that's what Humph meant when he said transportation was worse than hanging

In the Eighteenth century, there were over 200 capital crimes... and for practically everything else a convict got transported. If you survived that (read Robert Hughes, The Fatal Shore), you became an Australian.

I think that's what Humph meant when he said transportation was worse than hanging

Spot on !!

In the Eighteenth century, there were over 200 capital crimes... and for practically everything else a convict got transported. If you survived that (read Robert Hughes, The Fatal Shore), you became an Australian.

I think that's what Humph meant when he said transportation was worse than hanging

Spot on !!

Hang 'em...and I'll sell tickets....hell I'll give 'em away!

Yeah hanging or an Aussie cricket shirt....

What's worse is that my ancestors went there (Oz) voluntarily (they were called 'free settlers'). I suppose that back in those days, they weren't to know that it would develop into the over-regulated nanny state that it has since become. Of course, Blighty is no better in that regard. I suppose the thing that distinguishes Oz from the UK is that at least Oz has a touch of decent weather every now and then, and tends to avoid mass race riots. (It seems that the UK has been suffering some reverse transportation in recent decades.)

I KNOW it's silly, but it's no less silly than releasing repeat offenders who a dozen psychologists have all said the criminal is almost certain to commit another and often worse crime.

I think the definition of a "repeat offender" is commonly thought of as someone who commits a crime more than once, when really it is only someone who has been caught more than once. If that were the case, just about all offenders are repeat ones.

What's worse is that my ancestors went there (Oz) voluntarily (they were called 'free settlers'). I suppose that back in those days, they weren't to know that it would develop into the over-regulated nanny state that it has since become. Of course, Blighty is no better in that regard. I suppose the thing that distinguishes Oz from the UK is that at least Oz has a touch of decent weather every now and then, and tends to avoid mass race riots. (It seems that the UK has been suffering some reverse transportation in recent decades.)

Yes, Ping, eventually we decided that transportation was inhumane... so we discovered gold. That brought in a new wave of settlers. Finally, since we couldn't feed our people after the end of WWII, we offered cheap passages to Oz... GBP10 a head, I think it was.

I think there were some people who went there without any of these modes of persuasion.

Somehow this has got off the topic of Capital Punishment; sorry!

I KNOW it's silly, but it's no less silly than releasing repeat offenders who a dozen psychologists have all said the criminal is almost certain to commit another and often worse crime.

I think the definition of a "repeat offender" is commonly thought of as someone who commits a crime more than once, when really it is only someone who has been caught more than once. If that were the case, just about all offenders are repeat ones.

Many murderers are not by any means repeat offenders; they're people who have been driven desperate by their circumstances (often domestic), and have lost control. Crimes passionels are not repeated again and again.

I KNOW it's silly, but it's no less silly than releasing repeat offenders who a dozen psychologists have all said the criminal is almost certain to commit another and often worse crime.

I think the definition of a "repeat offender" is commonly thought of as someone who commits a crime more than once, when really it is only someone who has been caught more than once. If that were the case, just about all offenders are repeat ones.

Many murderers are not by any means repeat offenders; they're people who have been driven desperate by their circumstances (often domestic), and have lost control. Crimes passionels are not repeated again and again.

Murder as in crimes of passion, I agree there are extremely few if any repeat offenders at all. But the same can't be assumed of people who kill someone while committing another crime like burglary, car-jacking or drug-related, etc. But I think it's clear that the ratio is still much smaller for murderers than for a thief. Maybe a drug dealer caught after killing someone has killed before, but it's safe to say that the thief probably has stolen many times before he was eventually caught. And I'm of the mind of expanding the death penalty to include habitual offenders of all types so bringing thieves into this death penalty discussion is on topic.

If you think the death penalty is morally and ethically (to make sure I've got it all covered) wrong, as I do, you have to come up with an alternative. Releasing these people back into the general public is not a viable option. Keeping them in prison for ever is not a viable option either; apart from anything else, it would cost too much.

What about some settlements on the South Orkneys and the South Shetlands and South Georgia?

State-sanctioned murder. Barbaric, really. Obviously a 'No' vote

State-sanctioned murder. Barbaric, really. Obviously a 'No' vote

Yeah, Sing Sing, easy to Say No. But what do you do with all those nasty people who would, in less enlightened times, have been executed?

There are many different kinds of murder and if we want to institute a set of rules that say murder must be punishable by death - well, that's just not right on many fronts.

Mistakes in sentencing someone isn't a as uncommon as we may think and if you look at stats in the US, as an example of the only western country that murders people legally, you can easily see who gets executed . . . and it isn't just the minorities, rather it is a matter of being able to afford good representation - the court system doesn't dispense justice, it dispenses verdicts.

I guess I also don't want a government that I may have voted for murdering people in my name and with my blessing . . . the law is far too imprecise for that.

What's worse is that my ancestors went there (Oz) voluntarily (they were called 'free settlers'). I suppose that back in those days, they weren't to know that it would develop into the over-regulated nanny state that it has since become. Of course, Blighty is no better in that regard. I suppose the thing that distinguishes Oz from the UK is that at least Oz has a touch of decent weather every now and then, and tends to avoid mass race riots. (It seems that the UK has been suffering some reverse transportation in recent decades.)

Not just recent decades. I lived in Earls Court in the early sixties and the place was knee-deep in Ockers. Plus South Africans, Kiwis and other strange creatures.

The Aussies and Kiwis based themselves at the 'Swan', the Boers at the Zambezi Club. I lived about fifty yards from the Coleherne, which was a hangout for the exotics. It had very good jazz groups on a Sunday lunchtime, so if I was awake, I would usually drop in, suffer all the idiotic approaches and attempted grabs, to listen for an hour or two.

I was running an all-night basement cafe at the time, with people like Long John Baldry as regulars, (with pretty teens such as Rod Stewart in tow) and Donovan (when he wasn't crawling with insects). Very good part of my life - sex, drugs and rock 'n roll will always rule.

State-sanctioned murder. Barbaric, really. Obviously a 'No' vote

As I said last time that this topic arose, 'murder' is unlawful (premeditated) killing. If it is state-sanctioned, by definition it cannot be murder. Emotive terms are often used where people are either incapable of, or too lazy to, provide reasons for their opinions. However, the issue of whether the death penalty is barbaric is a reasonable point to make. Does one forfeit the right to life when he or she has been found guilty beyond shadow of a doubt? In other words, should there be a test applying over and above the the guilt test of beyond reasonable doubt that only applies at the sentencing stage, so that where there is a remote possibility that the person did not commit the crime, the death penalty is not available in the sentencing process? Who would make such determination - the finders of fact (jury) or the trier of the law (judge)?

No matter the approach, I find it barbaric that a person can commit a heinous crime such as a brutal murder and yet be allowed to be housed and fed at the expense of the taxpayer while awaiting his or her date with the parole board. The victim had no such luxury, and usually many other people suffer long-term consequences as well.

State-sanctioned murder. Barbaric, really. Obviously a 'No' vote

As I said last time that this topic arose, 'murder' is unlawful (premeditated) killing. If it is state-sanctioned, by definition it cannot be murder. Emotive terms are often used where people are either incapable of, or too lazy to, provide reasons for their opinions. However, the issue of whether the death penalty is barbaric is a reasonable point to make. Does one forfeit the right to life when he or she has been found guilty beyond shadow of a doubt? In other words, should there be a test applying over and above the the guilt test of beyond reasonable doubt that only applies at the sentencing stage, so that where there is a remote possibility that the person did not commit the crime, the death penalty is not available in the sentencing process? Who would make such determination - the finders of fact (jury) or the trier of the law (judge)?

No matter the approach, I find it barbaric that a person can commit a heinous crime such as a brutal murder and yet be allowed to be housed and fed at the expense of the taxpayer while awaiting his or her date with the parole board. The victim had no such luxury, and usually many other people suffer long-term consequences as well.

I'm not sure that the suffering of others is relevant. Would the crime be any less heinous if the victims were stoic? Orphans? Murdered in their sleep?

The principal benefit of the death penalty is the opportunity to satisfy the vengeful bloodlust of others for whom civilisation is but a thin veneer of convenience. No doubt there are others - perhaps economy, but it is a sad society that kills anyone off to save money, no matter how low the regards in which we hold them.

SC

^And here I was thinking that, amongst other things, it was intended as a deterrent and punishment...

E: I suppose I should mention that victim impact statements (not merely the immediate victim) are admitted in many jurisdictions. It seems that the suffering of others is considered relevant by some...

I'm not sure that the suffering of others is relevant. Would the crime be any less heinous if the victims were stoic? Orphans? Murdered in their sleep?

The principal benefit of the death penalty is the opportunity to satisfy the vengeful bloodlust of others for whom civilisation is but a thin veneer of convenience. No doubt there are others - perhaps economy, but it is a sad society that kills anyone off to save money, no matter how low the regards in which we hold them.

SC

If you don't kill them off to save money (and I agree entirely with you, SC, on this), are you prepared to shoulder the burden of housing and feeding these criminals (or perhaps, wrongly convicted people; one must remember this) for the rest of their lives? Are you prepared to employ, and potentially turn into sadistic morons, others to take care of these people?

I simply don't know the answer here... but I do not think you, or I, can say the death penalty is wrong in itself if we cannot produce reasonable alternatives.

State-sanctioned murder. Barbaric, really. Obviously a 'No' vote

As I said last time that this topic arose, 'murder' is unlawful (premeditated) killing. If it is state-sanctioned, by definition it cannot be murder.

You took the first entry on your Google search and use it as your raison d'etre for this? Serious? Far too simple . . . especially the 'state-sanctioned' variety.

It is murder, pure and simple - which basis of law are you using? Chinese law? Iranian law?

Are you one of the people that shouts out in indignation when a woman is stoned to death in Saudi for adultery? Well, you shouldn't, obviously, because it is state-sanctioned and therefore just fine . . . more, please.

Murder by the state apparatus is murder and I'm very, very glad that my home doesn't practice this barbaric act.

I simply don't know the answer here... but I do not think you, or I, can say the death penalty is wrong in itself if we cannot produce reasonable alternatives.

The alternative is to let them rot in jail as I'm sure we all know that jail is a punishment, not rehabilitation . . . and spending decades behind bars is punishment . . .

You also mentioned something about wrongful convictions . . . if you murder them then there is no going back - and the state-sanctioned murder of an innocent man is on the heads of those that supported the party that brought the death sentence into 'law'.

There are so many re-trials and mis-trials, wrongful convictions etc...

No, thanks. I don't like the idea of politicians deciding who can live or who can die

If you think the death penalty is morally and ethically (to make sure I've got it all covered) wrong, as I do, you have to come up with an alternative. Releasing these people back into the general public is not a viable option. Keeping them in prison for ever is not a viable option either; apart from anything else, it would cost too much.

What about some settlements on the South Orkneys and the South Shetlands and South Georgia?

This is exactly how I think it could be handled. Canada has a VAST area in the Arctic circle where there is no way out except by walking 2000 miles back to civilization in the dead of winter. Canada could build a city with no guards and caretakers, and then just drop off the murderers, rapists and the repeat offenders of serious crimes to fend for themselves. Canadian authorities would only need to drop off enough supplies for the inmates to take care of themselves. If the inmates want to destroy what they were given, or even murder each other then that is the alternative to an honest life style.

I've known at least 4 murderers in my life time. One was an ex friend of mine who went wacko and killed his wife and 2 of his 3 children. Another was a guy who I had an intense hate for, and he thought the same of me. He wound up killing our camp cook who he thought was having an affair with his wife. That cook could have been me had I stayed around camp much longer. Several times we got into fist fights. Both men spent only 7 years in prison. Another man was a Hungarian refugee who lived through that terrible time when Russia was at war with Hungary. Milan got used to killing people and it carried on after he came to Canada. I can't say the people that Milan murdered didn't have it coming, but that's not how we are supposed to do it in a civilized world. The fourth guy was just a mean bastard who was a drug runner and a bully. After he was sentenced to prison he was killed by one of the other inmates.

Nah let me wear an executioners mask and wield an axe. I'll do it for the good of mankind. How much more selfless can it get?

Nah let me wear an executioners mask and wield an axe. I'll do it for the good of mankind. How much more selfless can it get?

I suppose that's exactly my point. I am not too bothered about the victims, what is done is done, whether they be innocents or murderers, thy're all victims under the death penalty. I'm more worried about the perpetrators, and their interaction with society, whether they be axe-wielding slayers or baying mob. THe murderers are out of circulation for shorter or longer, or forever, but the baying mob stays in the streets... bread and circuses always run out in the end...

SC