Capital Punishment

[Rewulf]

Sorry, I thought you meant in general, not just for when the death penalty was an option.
But again, its going to cause problems with people saying the same process should be followed whatever the crime.
 

[12gauge82]

11 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Sorry, I thought you meant in general, not just for when the death penalty was an option.
But again, its going to cause problems with people saying the same process should be followed whatever the crime.
 

Probably my explanation mate.

True about others not thinking it goes far enough but I think itd be a step in the right direction.

[henry d]

14 hours ago, Gordon R said:

Based on that, why do we send people to prison? They might be innocent. Although they will still be alive, how do you put right the time they have been in jail.

I am at loss as to why people say we can't have two tier justice. Lee Rigby's killers were seen killing him, detained where they committed the murder - just how much proof do we need?  He wasn't killed by a sniper in the grassy knoll - they did it.

 

13 hours ago, The Mighty Prawn said:

Again I completely agree that the world would be a much better place without these people but how could you distinguish those suffering mental illness or similar? Must they face the noose if they commit a crime in front of witnesses?

im not being deliberately confrontational and exchanging views is the whole point of this discourse, I just can't see how it could be implemented and policed so to speak.

Ok, lets look at the ethics of these and other posts.

Some have advocated a 2 tier system; seen doing it, multiple witnesses etc and banged to rights and therefore we can hang them. Others who were found guilty "beyond reasonable doubt" are not and sent to jail for life, if they did do it and were not a victim of a flawed system, then they too should be hanged, there is no difference. Except no-one apart from them knows whether they are truly guilty.

Add something else into the melting pot; drunk/stoned driver kills someone, are they to be hanged too, if not why not? Speeding or dangerous driver kills someone, should they be hanged and if not why not? There may not be intent to go out and kill, but the outcome of their action, to which society has enacted laws to protect people, they have chosen to disregard them and an innocent person dies.

[henry d]

13 hours ago, Danger-Mouse said:

I was listening to a podcast the other day where they were talking about a guy who walked up to another guy, pulled out a pistol, and blew the fellows brains out. He was caught, freely admitted committing the murder and yet was only given a 10 year suspended sentence. Why? Because the guy he killed had molested his daughter.

So, a pretty black and white case of murder, with an admission of guilt, but is that someone you'd want to see dancing the Tyburn Jig? I suspect most people on here who have kids, probably even those that don't, would feel a lot of empathy for the killer in that case.

An exceptional circumstance for sure, but nonetheless it illustrates that the law isn't always black and white, even when at first glance it appears to be.

Interesting, do you have a link to the news story? I tried and there seems to be plenty but most have been dealt with by jail terms

[Gordon R]

henry d - you have missed the point deliberately or otherwise.  No-one that I can see is advocating hanging everyone. Don't exaggerate to make your point.

Quote

then they too should be hanged, there is no difference.

I you don't see the difference, it is because you chose to do so.

 

Quote

 Except no-one apart from them knows whether they are truly guilty.

Lee Rigby's killers - are you seriously saying only they know whether they are guilty? Bizarre.

[Danger-Mouse]

8 minutes ago, henry d said:

Interesting, do you have a link to the news story? I tried and there seems to be plenty but most have been dealt with by jail terms

I'm afraid not. It was just mentioned in passing with very little detail. They were talking about the Olympic doctor who has been locked up, and one of the girl's fathers begging the judge to just have a few minutes alone in a cell with the doctor and then the host mentioned this other case. It was in the states, not the UK if that helps.

[Rewulf]

23 minutes ago, henry d said:

 

Ok, lets look at the ethics of these and other posts.

 

Add something else into the melting pot; drunk/stoned driver kills someone, are they to be hanged too, if not why not? Speeding or dangerous driver kills someone, should they be hanged and if not why not? 

Erm , because thats not murder, its not even manslaughter, some say it should be , but in those cases it death by dangerous/ careless/ whatever driving.

And why are you looking at the ethics of the posts ?
We are talking about the ethics and implementation  of the death sentence, and whether it should be bought back or not.

18 minutes ago, henry d said:

Interesting, do you have a link to the news story? I tried and there seems to be plenty but most have been dealt with by jail terms

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Plauche

Edited February 6, 2018 by Rewulf

[DanBettin]

Our justice system can't be trusted with it. Wouldn't dream of signing it. That's not to say I haven't met people I'd rather were wiped off the face of the Earth, but 'beyond reasonable doubt' doesn't cut it for me. It's a fact that the wrong people have been executed in countries where capital punishment is exercised. No escaping facts.

[Gordon R]

Another post almost deliberately dodging the issue. If 100% guilt was established - as in Lee Rigby's killers - would that "cut it"?

No escaping facts - only when it suits.

[12gauge82]

7 minutes ago, DanBettin said:

Our justice system can't be trusted with it. Wouldn't dream of signing it. That's not to say I haven't met people I'd rather were wiped off the face of the Earth, but 'beyond reasonable doubt' doesn't cut it for me. It's a fact that the wrong people have been executed in countries where capital punishment is exercised. No escaping facts.

But that's the point, to implement the death penalty I beleive it should only be for the very worst offenders and should go beyond the current "beyond reasonable doubt" test and should be maybe "no possible doubt"

[henry d]

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

Erm , because thats not murder, its not even manslaughter, some say it should be , but in those cases it death by dangerous/ careless/ whatever driving.

I would be one of those people, if you drive and through dangerous in/actions or substance use and cause a death, then it is manslaughter at the minimum and in the extreme it could be murder. Many years ago I was in heavy traffic on the M6 iirc, there were 4 lanes and we were doing about 50mph, a car came up on my right and the passenger was slumped unconscious against the side window, the driver was smoking heroin. We left at the next exit. If the driver had caused an pile up and lives were lost is that just manslaughter? I don`t believe so. I don`t use my 6.5 to shoot crows out of trees as I know it could kill someone, highly unlikely but could, this same guy could smoke H every day while going down the motorway and never lose consciousness. Same goes for drink driving, my first fatality was a guy who had driven down the wrong side of the motorway in the early hours and smashed into a honeymoon couple, he died and so did the groom, the bride was widowed and very badly injured.

And why are you looking at the ethics of the posts ? Because that is part of the process
We are talking about the ethics and implementation  of the death sentence, and whether it should be bought back or not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Plauche

Legally it may not be but ethically it is.

Not the same story, 7 years/10 years, Daughter/son, but could be DM misheard, but I doubt it. Lets go for it though? Our justice system is there to prevent things such as the Plauche case and others as it may lead to lynch mobs or "justice" that is not in the same league. Is it right to take the law into your own hands? Of course not, we subscribe to the laws of the land or we are criminals ourselves, Plauche plea bargained to get a lesser sentence, something he should/would not be allowed to do here.

[walshie]

How did you know the driver was smoking heroin?

[Danger-Mouse]

5 minutes ago, henry d said:

Legally it may not be but ethically it is.

Not the same story, 7 years/10 years, Daughter/son, but could be DM misheard, but I doubt it. Lets go for it though? Our justice system is there to prevent things such as the Plauche case and others as it may lead to lynch mobs or "justice" that is not in the same league. Is it right to take the law into your own hands? Of course not, we subscribe to the laws of the land or we are criminals ourselves, Plauche plea bargained to get a lesser sentence, something he should/would not be allowed to do here.

I'm pretty sure that's the correct story, just my memory playing tricks with my own account.

[Gordon R]

Quote

But that's the point, to implement the death penalty I beleive it should only be for the very worst offenders and should go beyond the current "beyond reasonable doubt" test and should be maybe "no possible doubt"

Agree, but I'm sure some bright spark will claim there is no such thing as "no possible doubt".  I will leave the debate. I have my view, others have theirs, but some of the anti-hanging arguments are irrational.

[Rewulf]

1 hour ago, henry d said:

Legally it may not be but ethically it is.

Not the same story, 7 years/10 years, Daughter/son, but could be DM misheard, but I doubt it. Lets go for it though? Our justice system is there to prevent things such as the Plauche case and others as it may lead to lynch mobs or "justice" that is not in the same league. Is it right to take the law into your own hands? Of course not, we subscribe to the laws of the land or we are criminals ourselves, Plauche plea bargained to get a lesser sentence, something he should/would not be allowed to do here.

Somewhat pedantic, but the example is good enough for the purposes of this discussion , which was not about US law , but ours.

You site some examples of dangerous/drug driving, and whether it should really be manslaughter, I agree, sometimes it SHOULD.

Others have sited examples of murder beyond any doubt, are you saying the death sentence shouldnt be an option in these cases ?

Or should we spend millions keeping the worthless scum in cosy jails ?

These arent really ethical posts, they are opinions on the law.

Ethics tend to get put to one side when someone sets out to murder, which is NOT what happens when an unfit person gets behind the wheel.

The ethics come back in when the justice system looks after the human rights of the murderer.

 

[Wb123]

1 minute ago, Rewulf said:

Somewhat pedantic, but the example is good enough for the purposes of this discussion , which was not about US law , but ours.

You site some examples of dangerous/drug driving, and whether it should really be manslaughter, I agree, sometimes it SHOULD.

Others have sited examples of murder beyond any doubt, are you saying the death sentence shouldnt be an option in these cases ?

Or should we spend millions keeping the worthless scum in cosy jails ?

These arent really ethical posts, they are opinions on the law.

Ethics tend to get put to one side when someone sets out to murder, which is NOT what happens when an unfit person gets behind the wheel.

The ethics come back in when the justice system looks after the human rights of the murderer.

 

On a more pragmatic level, given the substantial legal safeguards we all seem to agree would be required, and the substantial costs of any new work for the legal profession, is locking them up not very likely to be cheaper as per the american experience?

 

Personally i agree there are cases where the death penalty wouldnt be unreasonable, but given the likely greater expense versus life imprisonment after legal costs are considered (especially with regard to the cost of preparing borderline cases for consideration), and the complete lack of any documentec deterrent effect, I feel there are many better things for society to spend money on.

[Rewulf]

15 minutes ago, Wb123 said:

On a more pragmatic level, given the substantial legal safeguards we all seem to agree would be required, and the substantial costs of any new work for the legal profession, is locking them up not very likely to be cheaper as per the american experience?

 

Personally i agree there are cases where the death penalty wouldnt be unreasonable, but given the likely greater expense versus life imprisonment after legal costs are considered (especially with regard to the cost of preparing borderline cases for consideration), and the complete lack of any documentec deterrent effect, I feel there are many better things for society to spend money on.

I see your point, but you know what they say about justice ?

It has to be seen to be done.

These days you have an attitude amongst the lawless, where if they are unlucky enough to get caught , they know ,naff all is going to happen to them.

You also have the the law abiding, and the victims, knowing full well if the perp gets caught, naff all is going to happen to them.

And by 'naff all' what I mean is , IF they get some prison time, it will be short ,and comfortable.
They are however, probably going to walk out of court with some kind of 'order' laughing their heads off !
The victim might have life changing injuries, or a loss of money or possessions, its highly likely they are worried about repercussions.
Is that justice in the 21 st century ?

This leads to a cycle of further criminality, where the perp believes the consequences are worth the risk.
A good solicitor, a sob story or a technicality , even if they get caught again, they know theres a good chance of walking..again.

A lot of murderers are long time petty criminals, who have gone through life being least bothered by the law.

Obviously something needs to change, or it just gets worse.
The punishment fitting the crime would be a good place to start.

[motty]

2 hours ago, Rewulf said:

I see your point, but you know what they say about justice ?

It has to be seen to be done.

These days you have an attitude amongst the lawless, where if they are unlucky enough to get caught , they know ,naff all is going to happen to them.

You also have the the law abiding, and the victims, knowing full well if the perp gets caught, naff all is going to happen to them.

And by 'naff all' what I mean is , IF they get some prison time, it will be short ,and comfortable.
They are however, probably going to walk out of court with some kind of 'order' laughing their heads off !
The victim might have life changing injuries, or a loss of money or possessions, its highly likely they are worried about repercussions.
Is that justice in the 21 st century ?

This leads to a cycle of further criminality, where the perp believes the consequences are worth the risk.
A good solicitor, a sob story or a technicality , even if they get caught again, they know theres a good chance of walking..again.

A lot of murderers are long time petty criminals, who have gone through life being least bothered by the law.

Obviously something needs to change, or it just gets worse.
The punishment fitting the crime would be a good place to start.

Exactly my thoughts.

[Scully]

2 hours ago, Rewulf said:

I see your point, but you know what they say about justice ?

It has to be seen to be done.

These days you have an attitude amongst the lawless, where if they are unlucky enough to get caught , they know ,naff all is going to happen to them.

You also have the the law abiding, and the victims, knowing full well if the perp gets caught, naff all is going to happen to them.

And by 'naff all' what I mean is , IF they get some prison time, it will be short ,and comfortable.
They are however, probably going to walk out of court with some kind of 'order' laughing their heads off !
The victim might have life changing injuries, or a loss of money or possessions, its highly likely they are worried about repercussions.
Is that justice in the 21 st century ?

This leads to a cycle of further criminality, where the perp believes the consequences are worth the risk.
A good solicitor, a sob story or a technicality , even if they get caught again, they know theres a good chance of walking..again.

A lot of murderers are long time petty criminals, who have gone through life being least bothered by the law.

Obviously something needs to change, or it just gets worse.
The punishment fitting the crime would be a good place to start.

Yeah; I’d have to agree with that. 

[grrclark]

13 hours ago, Gordon R said:

I am with Danger-Mouse and Scully. I wouldn't want to see the man cited above - facing the death penalty. What I am saying is that it should be an option, where we are 100% certain of guilt, there are no mitigating factors or diminished responsibility.

In this case the legislation now needs to cover a condition of 100% guilt and also now needs to have explicit consideration for what may constitute a mitigating factor or count as diminished responsibility.

So as an example if in the case of the story cited by DM, if emotional distress at the abuse of ones daughter is a mitigating factor would emotional distress at the death of family member also count as a mitigating factor?  What about the emotional distress of hearing that your spouse has been ******** your best mate, just poisoned your dog and crashed your cherished motor?  Would that be a mitigating factor?

What about if your daughter wasn't actually abused, it was a false allegation by her, but given that your natural instinct is to protect and you believe her you blow the accused's head off?

In the case of diminished responsibility would drunkenness count or being under the influence of drugs?  What about those who are suffering acute pain that brings about a temporary psychotic episode, or maybe those that have bashed their head?  Would someone who is a bit feeble minded and been convinced to do something that they might not otherwise do count as having diminished responsibility , i.e. they have been groomed or radicalised because they are suggestible due to being stupid?

Given the fundamental premise of our legal system is that we are presumed to be innocent until proven otherwise how could we prove that the person claiming temporary insanity, emotional distress, short term diminished responsibility through a bumped head are not just making it up to avoid the noose. 

I am using daft examples, but it highlights that if you try to establish a rule by exception, i.e. a death sentence can only apply when there is 100% certainty of the person actually committing and there are no other factors to be taken into consideration, then you have to set out what all the exceptions are otherwise everything becomes a right to appeal and ultimately nobody would be sentenced to death without going through countless trials with the attendant expense, all the whilst amidst the publicity of those who will always fight against a death penalty, e.g. Amnesty International.

As much as I would like to see some people swing for their crimes, establishing an effective and workable piece of legislation to allow that to happen, I believe, would be a fruitless endeavour.

Setting aside the hypothetical examples I shall give a real life example that I have first hand experience of.  In December 2003 one of my very close friends was stabbed through the heart by his fiancee and died on his neighbours doorstep after crawling to get help.  She stabbed him with a kitchen knife in the back and it punctured his heart (I regret buying that knife set as an engagement gift).

Her motivation was that he brought home the wrong carry out meal, he bought Chinese and she wanted Indian.

She admitted her guilt to the police as soon as they arrived, she had ordered an Indian takeaway to be delivered and once it had arrived she stabbed him.  She was eating her curry as my friend died on the neighbours doorstep, watching him from the window, and was still eating it when the police arrived. Their 6 month old wee boy was asleep in his cot.

Callous and cruel and absolutely no remorse and no ambiguity in respect to what happened, no denials or change of story and no excuses when giving her numerous statements, so a sure candidate for our hypothetical law.  I would have paid money to watch her hang.

When it came to the trial her defence brief claimed historical physical abuse by her step father and mental abuse by her mother (both anecdotal evidence only, but couldn't be proven to not be true), they claimed there was a degree of post natal depression (couldn't be proven one way or the other) and also claimed that my mate was an abusive partner (there were numerous witness statements from ex partners and his ex wife that there was never any suggestion of that previously, but could not be proven one way or the other).

She was given a mandatory life sentence with a requirement to serve a minimum of 13 years prior to any consideration of parole.

The point of that story, that despite the cast iron case, to my mind, of her guilt there was still sufficient challenge made at the trial that would almost certainly remove any possibility of establishing 100% guilt with no mitigating considerations, i.e. sufficient to sentence her to death.

If any PW members live around Ashton in Makerfield/Wigan area they may remember the case from 14 years ago, but the likelihood is that it is just one of the hundreds of murders per year that don't make national news, unlike the examples given earlier, and that nobody will be aware of it.  If those cases such as the one I describe were all to go through numerous stages of appeal prior to having a death sentence it would cost us a fortune and to my mind no greater societal benefit as so few, if any, would actually be executed.

For that reason I would vote no to the death penalty should there ever be a plebiscite, not because I am against the principle, but i am very much against bad law or worthless legislation as i believe it causes as many problems as it solves.  I would however absolutely support far harsher sentencing, a minimum of 13 years for killing one of my best friends sickened me.

 

Edited February 6, 2018 by grrclark

[toxo]

A lot of the problem is about money. It really is the root of all evil.

Take a look at Monacos crime figures where there are 2 coppers to every resident (might be a slight exageration). you won't find much because the residents are wealthy and that wealth can fund a proper police force.

Contrast that with what we have here. Govt after Govt that are a legacy of the days of the empire when money flowed into this country like water. Now they don't know how make money without taxation and austerity which leads to more crime and less police force to stop it.

Sentences are getting more and more lenient because our prisons are full and we can't afford to build new ones so there's nowhere to put em.

Let's get practical. Hang em and free up our prisons, spend the money on better things. Maybe, and that's a big maybe with the forensics and technology we have nowadays, one person in a thousand might be innocent but that's collateral damage I'm afraid and the price we have to pay to get back to reality without the emotion.

And what's with all these laws and rules to save our lives for us??? We're getting older so there's more of us to pay for. Chuck the stupid laws away and let us be free to kill ourselves and free up the nhs.

What makes me laugh is people think clunk click was about a caring govt! Total ****! They had to find a way to avoid building new hospitals which again we couldn't afford.

[Scully]

13 hours ago, grrclark said:

In this case the legislation now needs to cover a condition of 100% guilt and also now needs to have explicit consideration for what may constitute a mitigating factor or count as diminished responsibility.

So as an example if in the case of the story cited by DM, if emotional distress at the abuse of ones daughter is a mitigating factor would emotional distress at the death of family member also count as a mitigating factor?  What about the emotional distress of hearing that your spouse has been ******** your best mate, just poisoned your dog and crashed your cherished motor?  Would that be a mitigating factor?

What about if your daughter wasn't actually abused, it was a false allegation by her, but given that your natural instinct is to protect and you believe her you blow the accused's head off?

In the case of diminished responsibility would drunkenness count or being under the influence of drugs?  What about those who are suffering acute pain that brings about a temporary psychotic episode, or maybe those that have bashed their head?  Would someone who is a bit feeble minded and been convinced to do something that they might not otherwise do count as having diminished responsibility , i.e. they have been groomed or radicalised because they are suggestible due to being stupid?

Given the fundamental premise of our legal system is that we are presumed to be innocent until proven otherwise how could we prove that the person claiming temporary insanity, emotional distress, short term diminished responsibility through a bumped head are not just making it up to avoid the noose. 

I am using daft examples, but it highlights that if you try to establish a rule by exception, i.e. a death sentence can only apply when there is 100% certainty of the person actually committing and there are no other factors to be taken into consideration, then you have to set out what all the exceptions are otherwise everything becomes a right to appeal and ultimately nobody would be sentenced to death without going through countless trials with the attendant expense, all the whilst amidst the publicity of those who will always fight against a death penalty, e.g. Amnesty International.

As much as I would like to see some people swing for their crimes, establishing an effective and workable piece of legislation to allow that to happen, I believe, would be a fruitless endeavour.

Setting aside the hypothetical examples I shall give a real life example that I have first hand experience of.  In December 2003 one of my very close friends was stabbed through the heart by his fiancee and died on his neighbours doorstep after crawling to get help.  She stabbed him with a kitchen knife in the back and it punctured his heart (I regret buying that knife set as an engagement gift).

Her motivation was that he brought home the wrong carry out meal, he bought Chinese and she wanted Indian.

She admitted her guilt to the police as soon as they arrived, she had ordered an Indian takeaway to be delivered and once it had arrived she stabbed him.  She was eating her curry as my friend died on the neighbours doorstep, watching him from the window, and was still eating it when the police arrived. Their 6 month old wee boy was asleep in his cot.

Callous and cruel and absolutely no remorse and no ambiguity in respect to what happened, no denials or change of story and no excuses when giving her numerous statements, so a sure candidate for our hypothetical law.  I would have paid money to watch her hang.

When it came to the trial her defence brief claimed historical physical abuse by her step father and mental abuse by her mother (both anecdotal evidence only, but couldn't be proven to not be true), they claimed there was a degree of post natal depression (couldn't be proven one way or the other) and also claimed that my mate was an abusive partner (there were numerous witness statements from ex partners and his ex wife that there was never any suggestion of that previously, but could not be proven one way or the other).

She was given a mandatory life sentence with a requirement to serve a minimum of 13 years prior to any consideration of parole.

The point of that story, that despite the cast iron case, to my mind, of her guilt there was still sufficient challenge made at the trial that would almost certainly remove any possibility of establishing 100% guilt with no mitigating considerations, i.e. sufficient to sentence her to death.

If any PW members live around Ashton in Makerfield/Wigan area they may remember the case from 14 years ago, but the likelihood is that it is just one of the hundreds of murders per year that don't make national news, unlike the examples given earlier, and that nobody will be aware of it.  If those cases such as the one I describe were all to go through numerous stages of appeal prior to having a death sentence it would cost us a fortune and to my mind no greater societal benefit as so few, if any, would actually be executed.

For that reason I would vote no to the death penalty should there ever be a plebiscite, not because I am against the principle, but i am very much against bad law or worthless legislation as i believe it causes as many problems as it solves.  I would however absolutely support far harsher sentencing, a minimum of 13 years for killing one of my best friends sickened me.

 

A good post ( as usual ) and good points well made, and a moving example of a thought provoking experience, but I still firmly believe there is an equally good case for reinstating capital punishment, and all that that entails. 

I have no doubt Ruth Ellis ( had she been French and that sad story had unfolded in France ) may well have been saved from the gallows by mitigating circumstances which were ignored in this country, but I simply cannot understand what purpose is served ( other than serving some misguided impression that we are a civilised society ) by keeping the likes of Brady and Sutcliffe etc alive. Equally some may argue nothing is served by killing them, but I can’t be convinced by that argument. 

It’s an interesting topic indeed, and one which I often can’t help but compare to our treatment of animals, for which we seem to have at times, more consideration, from both sides of this debate. 

 

[Rewulf]

30 minutes ago, Scully said:

A good post ( as usual ) and good points well made, and a moving example of a thought provoking experience, but I still firmly believe there is an equally good case for reinstating capital punishment, and all that that entails. 

I have no doubt Ruth Ellis ( had she been French and that sad story had unfolded in France ) may well have been saved from the gallows by mitigating circumstances which were ignored in this country, but I simply cannot understand what purpose is served ( other than serving some misguided impression that we are a civilised society ) by keeping the likes of Brady and Sutcliffe etc alive. Equally some may argue nothing is served by killing them, but I can’t be convinced by that argument. 

It’s an interesting topic indeed, and one which I often can’t help but compare to our treatment of animals, for which we seem to have at times, more consideration, from both sides of this debate. 

 

Indeed, some of the more liberal minded might say, prison sentences are too long for these type of crimes, never mind capital punishment !

So, is it more barbaric to keep them in a cage ,than to kill them?
Is the 'punishment' more barbaric than the crime ?
Some people might think so, there are plenty who also profit from telling you so.

Some countries see it differently.

http://www.robertreeveslaw.com/blog/life-sentences/

It comes back to that thread about people 'born evil'
Whilst Im not really a believer , it begs the question , What is the point of trying to rehabilitate people who have committed heinous crimes ?
Is a serial rapist EVER going to be 'cured' , will women, or men, be safe when they are freed ?
Chemical castration? Oh no too barbaric !
Whilst a serial killer would be unlikely to see the light of day, plenty of murderers have got out to reoffend and sometimes murder again.

Government figures are vague and complex, but generally speaking ,just over half of those sent to prison  ,when released went on to be convicted of more crimes.
Thats those that were CAUGHT, you can imagine what kind of low percentage have NO intention of reoffending if you like to speculate.

So does prison work, is it a deterrent ?
Certainly not in its present form.
Whats needed is a government with the balls to shake up the whole justice system, make prisons a place to be feared, without being barbaric or violent.
Have the death sentence as an option for certain cases.
I wont hold my breath.

 

[grrclark]

Scully, i can also absolutely see a case where capital punishment is valid, but I cannot see how we could practically reinstate such a sentence within our criminal justice system.

[toxo]

There's an old saying, "You can't please all the people all the time". This thread could run forever and therein lies the problem. In an effort to deem ourselves a civilised and caring society we've allowed many things to slide. How is the many suicides because of austerity different from the situations many of you have described? In my book it's legalised killing by people who are licensed to do it despite being elected to govern for the all and not the few. There's another scenario to add to to those already cited.

Not many people are going to like what I'm about to say.

What's needed is something that none of us are going to like and that is a filter. In years to come we are going to have to find some way of getting through all these "mitigating" circumstances. Being brutal about it, along the lines of "are these people who are committing these crimes for whatever reason adding or subtracting to the well being of this country?". Don't think we'll need to go as far as Menghala? but somehow we have to break out of this namby pamby nanny state we've created for ourselves which is going to get worse before it's ever going to get better.