I feel sorry for this chap, I really do.

[figgy]

I'd find it preferable than spending the rest of my days in prison.

Would you prefer to spend the rest of your days locked up.

Edited December 24, 2020 by figgy

[mel b3]

9 hours ago, NoBodyImportant said:

Fun story.   My uncle did a few months for killing a man.  Guy robbed my uncles house on top of a mountain at gun point.  The drive way was about a 1/2 mile long around the mountain but ended up about 300 yards down the hill side.  After the guy left my uncle went on his back porch with his rifle.  He shot the guy at the end of the driveway when he stopped to look both ways before pulling out on the main road.  He was in jail for a few months before he was found not guilty. 

I find that more than acceptable 👍. 

9 hours ago, ehb102 said:

The one thing that human beings absolutely should not, must not, do is decide that the life of one human is worth more or less than another, or that a life is not worth living.

What happens if you decide that other people do not have the right to live? Murder. Genocide. Forced euthenasia. Ethnic cleansing. 

Recognising the humanity of other humans is the minimum required of a morally responsible person. If you can't manage that, why would the Police trust you with a lethal weapon? 

 

 

I'd have to disagree with you on that one liz , and that's partly thanks to you . Over recent months , I've come to understand more of paedophiles and rapists ,  things that id been completely oblivious to , and im now of the opinion that the world would be a better place if they were executed .

[12gauge82]

8 hours ago, enfieldspares said:

Then you're a fool. Kiszko was a no doubt whatsoever case. 

Having opposing ideas does not make people fools. 

You'd simply need to set a higher burden of proof for the death sentence to be passed, I.e beyond any doubt, I haven't read it but Kiszko can't have been as the test in the UK has always been beyond reasonable doubt. 

[henry d]

10 hours ago, Scully said:

Quite Henry, if that were indeed the case the bike wouldn’t have been stolen and the gremlin would still be alive, but that’s not what you meant is it?
It works both ways you see. 

That's exactly what I mean.

[Scully]

29 minutes ago, henry d said:

That's exactly what I mean.

In that case I stand corrected. 

[ordnance]

9 hours ago, figgy said:

I'd find it preferable than spending the rest of my days in prison.

Would you prefer to spend the rest of your days locked up.

Yeah its easy saying that now, you might have a change of heart when they were placing a rope around your neck. But the death penalty is not going to return the the UK, so its sort of pointless talking about it. 

Edited December 24, 2020 by ordnance

[Harry136]

The thief in question had comitted 50 plus crimes, if we were to reinstate the death penalty, there should be a clause that allows for the death penalty if a person is convicted of 50 or more crimes as it is clear that they will never change, they will always be a burden on society, so what is the point in keeping them alive just to be an embuggerance on society again!

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Just now, Harry136 said:

The thief in question had comitted 50 plus crimes, if we were to reinstate the death penalty, there should be a clause that allows for the death penalty if a person is convicted of 50 or more crimes as it is clear that they will never change, they will always be a burden on society, so what is the point in keeping them alive just to be an embuggerance on society again!

Make it 5 and then when you are convicted of the 6th it is time to LEAVE!

[ordnance]

2 hours ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Make it 5 and then when you are convicted of the 6th it is time to LEAVE!

Or maybe 2, or they could cut their hands off like in some Muslim countries. 

Edited December 24, 2020 by ordnance

[TIGHTCHOKE]

1 minute ago, ordnance said:

Or maybe 2, or they could cut their hands off like in some Muslim countries. 

Now you're being silly!

[NoBodyImportant]

On 23/12/2020 at 16:07, henry d said:

... and if everyone recognised the humanity of their fellow human we would not be having these conversations.

If you guys still hanged thieves and left the bodies on display we wouldn’t be having these conversations also.  Studies have shown people are less likely to reoffend once they have been hanged.  

17 hours ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Now you're being silly!

Hold on now, let’s hear him out. 

[Rim Fire]

3 hours ago, NoBodyImportant said:

If you guys still hanged thieves and left the bodies on display we wouldn’t be having these conversations also.  Studies have shown people are less likely to reoffend once they have been hanged.  

Hold on now, let’s hear him out. 

They did exactly that back then you lot got the death penalty but it haven't been a deterrent has it 🤔

[Newbie to this]

1 hour ago, Rim Fire said:

They did exactly that back then you lot got the death penalty but it haven't been a deterrent has it 🤔

I'd hazard a guess that it has/is to some.

And as mentioned, there is no re-offending by those it didn't deter and were caught.

[Rim Fire]

1 hour ago, Newbie to this said:

I'd hazard a guess that it has/is to some.

And as mentioned, there is no re-offending by those it didn't deter and were caught.

But its not the some that's the problem its the ones  it hasn't deterred 

[Newbie to this]

25 minutes ago, Rim Fire said:

But its not the some that's the problem its the ones  it hasn't deterred 

Yes, but it works for the ones it does deter, and those given the sentence cannot offend again.

Win, win in my book.

[NoBodyImportant]

10 hours ago, Rim Fire said:

They did exactly that back then you lot got the death penalty but it haven't been a deterrent has it 🤔

We barely have it.  You set on death row for like 20 year and the it get commuted to life.  I’m talking hard core  found guilty of theft hanged in front of the court house. 

[ordnance]

2 hours ago, NoBodyImportant said:

We barely have it.  You set on death row for like 20 year and the it get commuted to life.  I’m talking hard core  found guilty of theft hanged in front of the court house. 

Sounds like you would like sharia law, maybe like ISIS just cut their heads off in front of the court house. 

[NoBodyImportant]

40 minutes ago, ordnance said:

Sounds like you would like sharia law, maybe like ISIS just cut their heads off in front of the court house. 

No.   Jury of 12, trial, representation. Every thing the constitution guarantees.  Then if found guilty hang them.  Prison should be for people who will be released in a short time.  No reason to feed people for the rest of their lives.  

[ordnance]

12 minutes ago, NoBodyImportant said:

No.   Jury of 12, trial, representation. Every thing the constitution guarantees.  Then if found guilty hang them.  Prison should be for people who will be released in a short time.  No reason to feed people for the rest of their lives.  

Plenty of innocent people have being found guilty by a Jury of 12, trial, just put them down as colleterial damage then.  Some are OK with that when its someone else, they tend to think differently if it was them or friend or family. 

Edited December 25, 2020 by ordnance

[henry d]

On 25/12/2020 at 04:15, NoBodyImportant said:

If you guys still hanged thieves and left the bodies on display we wouldn’t be having these conversations also.  Studies have shown people are less likely to reoffend once they have been hanged.  

Hold on now, let’s hear him out. 

Well we don't and are better for it.

[12gauge82]

23 minutes ago, henry d said:

Well we don't and are better for it.

I'm not advocating hanging theives but society would be a lot better without them, maybe 3 strikes and they get banged up for life, on their third offence, take away all but the most basic of human rights and they could be warehoused very cheaply unable to cause misery to decent people anymore? 

[henry d]

3 strikes for motoring offences? If not why not?

Even without the above you will have a huge prison population, do you want to pay for that?

[TIGHTCHOKE]

17 minutes ago, henry d said:

3 strikes for motoring offences? If not why not?

Even without the above you will have a huge prison population, do you want to pay for that?

What do you suggest then Henry?

Edited December 28, 2020 by TIGHTCHOKE

[12gauge82]

54 minutes ago, henry d said:

3 strikes for motoring offences? If not why not?

Even without the above you will have a huge prison population, do you want to pay for that?

I didn't say for motoring offences did I. 

And like I said in my post above that you chose to ignore I said if you warehouse criminals without many rights it would be very cheap. It'd certainly cost a lot less than dealing with them in the community, cost of policing, anti social behaviour, social services, drug programs, lost and damaged property, cost to the NHS, schools, I could go on and on. 

[henry d]

So why not motoring offences, why just thieves?

The costs would spiral due to large numbers of families and dependents requiring government benefits and/or assistance, and you seem to think that it would prevent others offending and it hasn't been the case for as long as the world has had a penal system.