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?

Smokes, have you ever watched the movie about Albert Pierrepoint. Quite a good movie about the last hangman in the UK

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?

Well 'ard . . .

Have you ever killed anything bigger than a fly or are you one of the legendary Pattaya SAS/SEALS legends?

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?

Well 'ard . . .

Have you ever killed anything bigger than a fly or are you one of the legendary Pattaya SAS/SEALS legends?

If you;d been paying attention to some of his previous posts you'd have died laughing. I was lucky - I got better....

SC

I suppose the fundamental question here is:

Would one rather be sinned against, or sinner?

Are morals a simple pragmatic expedient, or do you believe that there are certain things that one should not do, if one can avoid doing so?

SC

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?

Well 'ard . . .

Have you ever killed anything bigger than a fly or are you one of the legendary Pattaya SAS/SEALS legends?

Tsk. Its the brutalisation of an entire society we are talking about here. A big step up from allowing your people to carry guns even. Very sad that anyone would be in favour overall.

I say this in spite of personal anger at some of the weak sentencing and jailing around the world. Punishment should be work or more incarceration in my view but its enforcement seems to be a major stumbling block in civilised society....

Well 'ard . . .

Have you ever killed anything bigger than a fly or are you one of the legendary Pattaya SAS/SEALS legends?

If you;d been paying attention to some of his previous posts you'd have died laughing. I was lucky - I got better....

SC

Ah, got it . . . I generally look at the post without looking at the poster . . . lazy, I guess

Tsk. Its the brutalisation of an entire society we are talking about here. A big step up from allowing your people to carry guns even. Very sad that anyone would be in favour overall.

I say this in spite of personal anger at some of the weak sentencing and jailing around the world. Punishment should be work or more incarceration in my view but its enforcement seems to be a major stumbling block in civilised society....

Fairy Muff, I tend to agree. Enforcement of rules is always at the heart of the matter . . . but - if the sentences are too harsh then we complain of a draconian legal system and if the sentences are too lenient we decry the absence of cojones and judging each case on its merits without sentencing guidelines really muddles things up, especially in countries like the USA where judges are elected

I'm against judges handing down sentences. It seems to me like its the perk of the job for some. Their job should be to direct the court only.

We should train specialists in sentencing...make the punshment and rehabilitation fit better the crime.

Edit: sp

Well 'ard . . .

Have you ever killed anything bigger than a fly or are you one of the legendary Pattaya SAS/SEALS legends?

If you;d been paying attention to some of his previous posts you'd have died laughing. I was lucky - I got better....

SC

Ah, got it . . . I generally look at the post without looking at the poster . . . lazy, I guess

Tsk. Its the brutalisation of an entire society we are talking about here. A big step up from allowing your people to carry guns even. Very sad that anyone would be in favour overall.

I say this in spite of personal anger at some of the weak sentencing and jailing around the world. Punishment should be work or more incarceration in my view but its enforcement seems to be a major stumbling block in civilised society....

Fairy Muff, I tend to agree. Enforcement of rules is always at the heart of the matter . . . but - if the sentences are too harsh then we complain of a draconian legal system and if the sentences are too lenient we decry the absence of cojones and judging each case on its merits without sentencing guidelines really muddles things up, especially in countries like the USA where judges are elected

Electing judges has always struck me as one of the lunacies which a strict adherence to democratic principles leads you to. Like electing heads of academic departments, which is common in Thailand; surely the job should go to the best qualified person.

But this thread is about the UK, where we haven't yet gone quite so far (though local magistrates are appointed without having to have any legal knowledge).

^ You're quite right, this is about the UK, sorry for diverting the thread to your cousins across the pond.

Speaking of judges, elected or not, and a jury of one's 'peers' - I'm all for a panel of judges handing down verdicts instead of relying on a group of people whose only claim to fame is not being smart enough to get out of jury duty.

Death penalty, to get back on track, is simply wrong . . . and with a jury system it is even more wrong

^But of course, in the case of a person who, for example, viciously rapes and murders a young mother, it is okay for her killer to then be a burden on the taxpayer for the rest of his life? Yes, I agree the death penalty should not be used in all cases, but should it be a discretion available to judges in aggravated cases in which - in order to exercise the discretion - satisfaction of guilt must be established beyond doubt? Would this extend to crimes such as commercial trafficking of hard drugs?

E:T

^ Right . . . where do you draw the line? Accidental murder, Russian Roulette anyone? Drunk-driving? Delivery or sale of bad drugs? Self-defense? . . . and the list goes on.

What about those convicted despite being innocent?

At least if they are locked up the innocent ones will have a chance to be proven innocent in time . . . can't do that if they are murdered by the state

^ Right . . . where do you draw the line? Accidental murder, Russian Roulette anyone? Drunk-driving? Delivery or sale of bad drugs? Self-defense? . . . and the list goes on.

What about those convicted despite being innocent?

At least if they are locked up the innocent ones will have a chance to be proven innocent in time . . . can't do that if they are murdered by the state

I don't think the death penalty acts as much of a deterrent; to be honest, more of a sheep and lambs sort of incentive, I think - a "nothing to lose" sort of mentality. I don't think anyone commits crimes with the anticipation of getting caught, except for your habitual petty villains who factor in parking tickets and speeding fines or whatever into their overall plans.

Actually, I can think of another exception to that. A friend of mine told me that while whiling away a Friday evening in the cells in Dubai he ran into a bloke who had defrauded the bank of substantial sums of money by writing bouncing cheques, and was intending to complete his criminal sentence for writing dodgy checques before fleeing the country, abandoning the civil liability of his debt to the bank in the anticipation that it would not be enforced overseas (as others have claimed to do from other jurisdictions on these fora, by fleeing to Thailand). I doubt he would have been so blase about accepting the punishment if it had been the amputation of his signing hand... not that I am suggesting that by way of deterrent...

SC

Just by introducing the death penalty, doesn't mean it has to be enforced. It would be just there as predominetly a deterrent and an option. At the moment the only deterrent is 3 square meals a day and as much sky TV you can watch.

Just by introducing the death penalty, doesn't mean it has to be enforced. It would be just there as predominetly a deterrent and an option. At the moment the only deterrent is 3 square meals a day and as much sky TV you can watch.

I don't think the death penalty acted as a deterrent... and I'm 100% against "having it but not enforcing it". But I agree that the present prison system doesn't seem to be much of a deterrent either.

I don't think the death penalty acted as a deterrent

Why? I live in a country where they still have it and I can tell you that here, it IS a deterrent. However, like most deterrents, it doesn't deter everyone. What is unquantifiable is how many crimes haven't been committed because the person was indeed deterred from doing it.

I don't think the death penalty acted as a deterrent

Why? I live in a country where they still have it and I can tell you that here, it IS a deterrent. However, like most deterrents, it doesn't deter everyone. What is unquantifiable is how many crimes haven't been committed because the person was indeed deterred from doing it.

You cannot say "It IS a deterrent"; you can only say, as I did, that you think it is (or is not). There are so many factors involved in whether people commit crimes or not that even an increase in the number of murders after the abolition of the death penalty (e.g. in UK) would prove nothing.

Frustrating, I know, but true!

I don't think the death penalty acted as a deterrent

Why? I live in a country where they still have it and I can tell you that here, it IS a deterrent. However, like most deterrents, it doesn't deter everyone. What is unquantifiable is how many crimes haven't been committed because the person was indeed deterred from doing it.

You cannot say "It IS a deterrent"; you can only say, as I did, that you think it is (or is not). There are so many factors involved in whether people commit crimes or not that even an increase in the number of murders after the abolition of the death penalty (e.g. in UK) would prove nothing.

Frustrating, I know, but true!

Sorry Issan. But I stand by what I said. Even for what we would consider trivial offences i.e. bringing in booze and pork the consequences are enough to make it not worthwhile for the majority. If the punishment was a 10 pound fine it would be worth the risk. Therefore, even if it only stops one person from doing a crime, the deterrent has been effective.

I don't think the death penalty acted as a deterrent

Why? I live in a country where they still have it and I can tell you that here, it IS a deterrent. However, like most deterrents, it doesn't deter everyone. What is unquantifiable is how many crimes haven't been committed because the person was indeed deterred from doing it.

You cannot say "It IS a deterrent"; you can only say, as I did, that you think it is (or is not). There are so many factors involved in whether people commit crimes or not that even an increase in the number of murders after the abolition of the death penalty (e.g. in UK) would prove nothing.

Frustrating, I know, but true!

Sorry Issan. But I stand by what I said. Even for what we would consider trivial offences i.e. bringing in booze and pork the consequences are enough to make it not worthwhile for the majority. If the punishment was a 10 pound fine it would be worth the risk. Therefore, even if it only stops one person from doing a crime, the deterrent has been effective.

This is looking like one of those "Yes, it is", "No, it isn't" threads. MrBJ, I just think we have to agree to differ on this one!

You cannot say "It IS a deterrent"; you can only say, as I did, that you think it is (or is not). There are so many factors involved in whether people commit crimes or not that even an increase in the number of murders after the abolition of the death penalty (e.g. in UK) would prove nothing.

Frustrating, I know, but true!

Sorry Issan. But I stand by what I said. Even for what we would consider trivial offences i.e. bringing in booze and pork the consequences are enough to make it not worthwhile for the majority. If the punishment was a 10 pound fine it would be worth the risk. Therefore, even if it only stops one person from doing a crime, the deterrent has been effective.

This is looking like one of those "Yes, it is", "No, it isn't" threads. MrBJ, I just think we have to agree to differ on this one!

It obviously depends on what your deinition is of "deterrent" is I suppose.

Not forgetting, of course, that another consideration in the sentencing process is punishment.

I also note that 'sing-sling', in his response to my comment that, 'Yes, I agree the death penalty should not be used in all cases, but should it be a discretion available to judges in aggravated cases in which - in order to exercise the discretion - satisfaction of guilt must be established beyond doubt?' - the response included the line of 'What about the innocent?', or words to that effect.

In order for one to be convicted, guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. I made the point that for the capital punishment option to be available, perhaps the standard should be beyond all doubt. I thought the point was clear, but in any event, I merely raised the point for discussion (whiuch there hasn't been). And I'm not convinced that it would be the way to go, since prove beyond a shadow of a doubt would raise all sorts of problems.

But I take Isaan's point as to the direction the thread is heading, so I've no more to say on the subject...

Not forgetting, of course, that another consideration in the sentencing process is punishment.

I also note that 'sing-sling', in his response to my comment that, 'Yes, I agree the death penalty should not be used in all cases, but should it be a discretion available to judges in aggravated cases in which - in order to exercise the discretion - satisfaction of guilt must be established beyond doubt?' - the response included the line of 'What about the innocent?', or words to that effect.

In order for one to be convicted, guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. I made the point that for the capital punishment option to be available, perhaps the standard should be beyond all doubt. I thought the point was clear, but in any event, I merely raised the point for discussion (whiuch there hasn't been). And I'm not convinced that it would be the way to go, since prove beyond a shadow of a doubt would raise all sorts of problems.

But I take Isaan's point as to the direction the thread is heading, so I've no more to say on the subject...

I think you will find that 'reasonable doubt' is a basis of law in the US especially . . . and look at all the quashed convictions based on new technology, to name one factor.

Reasonable doubt is in itself a problem as it is open to interpretation . . . beyond all doubt is a concept that doesn't exist.

I'll give you an example, a very basic one:

This photo would show/mean different to different people . . . now extrapolate that to suit our discussion . . .

I still say that state-executions should be left to places like China, Saudi, Iran, Sudan, Yemen and . . . the USA

Smokie has touched on the 'deterent'

The sentence of 20 years hard labour would be a great deterent, to work for nothing except your keep, in a coal mine, a quarry, road sweeping, out in all weathers should be a major deterent to most. But 20 years hard labour should mean exactly that, no age issues, no cop out because of illness, you will be put out there and can stand in the rain and do nothing, your choice.....etc

Don't need the death penalty, just need more employed to guard and make sure these criminals do indeed serve 20 years hard labour to repay society for allowing them to live, yet they have no life other than incarceration and unrewarded hard work

From the above posts - in the UK there is no 'hard labour' anymore. It is just being banged-up in the flowery for 'x' number of hours a day, let out for sanitary, meal and recreation periods. So the punishment is boredom.

With regard to the 'beyond reasonable doubt' requirement for the death sentence - would juries be less likely to give a guilty verdict if they knew the death sentence was a possible conclusion.

For me, convicts in jail should earn their keep. They should also have compulsory tasks in education, social behaviour ans so on. No TV, boys mags and so on. Punish and educate.

And bring back the death penalty for wanton murder, drug barons, serial rapists. Not mandatory, but there as a possible result. Sentence by a panel of three judges, possible recommendation from the jury.

From the above posts - in the UK there is no 'hard labour' anymore. It is just being banged-up in the flowery for 'x' number of hours a day, let out for sanitary, meal and recreation periods. So the punishment is boredom.

With regard to the 'beyond reasonable doubt' requirement for the death sentence - would juries be less likely to give a guilty verdict if they knew the death sentence was a possible conclusion.

For me, convicts in jail should earn their keep. They should also have compulsory tasks in education, social behaviour ans so on. No TV, boys mags and so on. Punish and educate.

And bring back the death penalty for wanton murder, drug barons, serial rapists. Not mandatory, but there as a possible result. Sentence by a panel of three judges, possible recommendation from the jury.

Juries in the US legal systems are asked in the initial interview process if they have objections to a death sentence when the death sentence is being considered in a case.

If they voice objections, they are excused from the jury panel and do not serve on the jury.

I don't think the death penalty acted as a deterrent

Why? I live in a country where they still have it and I can tell you that here, it IS a deterrent. However, like most deterrents, it doesn't deter everyone. What is unquantifiable is how many crimes haven't been committed because the person was indeed deterred from doing it.

You cannot say "It IS a deterrent"; you can only say, as I did, that you think it is (or is not). There are so many factors involved in whether people commit crimes or not that even an increase in the number of murders after the abolition of the death penalty (e.g. in UK) would prove nothing.

Frustrating, I know, but true!

Sorry Issan. But I stand by what I said. Even for what we would consider trivial offences i.e. bringing in booze and pork the consequences are enough to make it not worthwhile for the majority. If the punishment was a 10 pound fine it would be worth the risk. Therefore, even if it only stops one person from doing a crime, the deterrent has been effective.

I don't look at the death penalty as a deterrent. I look at it as eliminating a dangerous person. If it deters others, then that's a bonus.