|
Post by dreamguardian on Nov 16, 2009 13:24:31 GMT -1
For many years I've pondered on & off about this. The recent TV programme 'The execution of Gary Glitter' renewed my thoughts.
I have have always been jumped on by pagans with my views but I always respect the reasoned arguements here. I appreciate it's not a simple yes or no answer but it's just to start the debate.
Is there a place for capital punishment in the UK now in the 21st century?
I personally do yet there is a but. A BIG BUT (No sarky comments on my choice of language on this statement ;D )
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 16, 2009 13:43:11 GMT -1
i watched it last night... very good.
i am anti-CP.
most of the people i have discussed it with and most of the arguments i see for it almost alwasy have a huge element of emotional motivation behind them: "how would you feel if it was your child" etc, and to my mind emotion has no place in criminal justice, as soon as it gets involved justice goes out the window.
CP is not a deterrant - one only has to look at the US.
the only reasonins that can be put forward is purely that of revenge and to my mind revenge has no place in the justice system. justice is about punishment and rehabilitation.
however, i do think prisons need to be tougher, i welcome prisoners working whilst in prison - tiny wage they can spend on stuff inside etc. i welcome them being offered the chance to study and educate themself - hence access to books but no games console, dvds etc. TV perhaps but thats it. prison should be a punishment, a deterrant, it should be hell... but for those who want to change aand make something of thier lives when they get out they should be afforded every opportunity.
i also thnk life should mean life, so for the worst crimes they go inside with no chance of praole. in those case i think that perhaps there is the chance to insitute voluntary euthanasia - they can opt for that, get a general anaesthetic and be put to sleep in a humane, peaceful and merciful fashion; not hanging ffs... for a 21stC couontry hanging is abhorrant.
|
|
|
Post by Tegernacus on Nov 16, 2009 13:53:56 GMT -1
yeah, the abolition of CP was a big step in our psyche, and a good one. The only reason it comes up again and again is because of failure (in general) of the Criminal Justice system. People (the mob, the plebs) demand punishment. What they get is short jail terms, compensation for perps etc.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 16, 2009 14:12:44 GMT -1
People (the mob, the plebs) demand punishment. fuelled by the red tops.
|
|
|
Post by potia on Nov 16, 2009 14:51:52 GMT -1
I'm anti-CP for one simple reason - mistakes happen. If a mistake is made with someone in prison even on a long term sentance they can be released, yes they have lost a lot of time but they are still alive.
Once some is dead that's it. No going back, no option to correct things.
|
|
|
Post by arth_frown on Nov 16, 2009 15:19:26 GMT -1
The death penalty is a absolutism. You can't have absolutism in a imperfect system.
|
|
|
Post by dreamguardian on Nov 16, 2009 15:34:09 GMT -1
i watched it last night... very good. I thought so too. Devils advocate here (I know no-one here is gonna take things personal or go off in a huff) The justice system isn't a deterent either. It's a pathetic imagined deterent & nothing to do with justice. With C-P, it could be argued that, that particular serious offender ( by definition: this is my big BUT bit ) will never commit those crimes again. There is a emotional revenge element to the arguement which is undeniable. There are certain crimes that go beyond the ability 0f rehabillitation & have no place in a civilised country. those affected may not be able to 'rehabillitate their lives knowing such vile criminals are still alive & their loved ones not. Many ex-prison & current officers state that the opposite is the norm. Do you mean that the criminal makes this choice rather than the state, Lee?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 16, 2009 15:38:03 GMT -1
yep. the criminal can either choose to be locked up for life in prisons that are harsher than our current ones or they can opt for euthanasia.
a nice line i heard on this subject;
life is the express property of the person, nobody, not even the state should be able to take it away from you.
|
|
|
Post by dreamguardian on Nov 16, 2009 15:46:24 GMT -1
I re-wrote my last post Lee. But your option I hadn't considered before
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 16, 2009 16:01:34 GMT -1
agreed. but so would locking them up for the remainder of thier naturla lives.
i am thinking that the 3 strikes system ( convicted 3 times for the same crime = life in prison) has merit.
|
|
|
Post by megli on Nov 16, 2009 16:24:42 GMT -1
It's very cheap though, C P.
I'm not sure it's not a deterrent actually: obviously the existence of CP isn't going to stop anyone going beserk in a jealous rage and knifing their wife's lover. But if you are an armed robber doing over a garage/shop, the threat of CP might well make you think twice about using your shooter on a policeman or the shop assistant, unlike 'life' imprisonment (= actually c. 9 years).
|
|
|
Post by Sìle on Nov 16, 2009 17:07:33 GMT -1
I am against the death penalty, for a number of reasons. I believe the following: ... mistakes happen. If a mistake is made with someone in prison even on a long term sentance they can be released, yes they have lost a lot of time but they are still alive. Once some is dead that's it. No going back, no option to correct things. The death penalty is a absolutism. You can't have absolutism in a imperfect system. life is the express property of the person, nobody, not even the state should be able to take it away from you. I have always believed that life means life, i.e. if someone takes a life then they spend that life in prison. I am one who would want revenge in that I would like to see the criminal suffer: isolation, bare minimum provisions and a liftime to meditate and contemplate their actions - no parole. Of course, should evidence later come to light to prove them innocent, then it's a matter of releasing them and offering them counselling to counteract any ill effects. The death penalty is not a deterrant; if it was, America (and other countries where CP is employed) would be murder free, surely? I agree prisoners should work, but any money they earn should be paid to their victims in compensation, it might also instill a sense of purpose in the prisoner. I also object to prisioners wanting their civil rights, such as being able to vote. I'm sorry, but the moment they committed the crime, they lost the right to be part of a civilised society. Prison is a way of banishing/exiling/excluding those who will not abide by society's rules. If you don't like the rules, then don't expect to enjoy the privileges.
|
|
|
Post by megli on Nov 17, 2009 8:53:38 GMT -1
The death penalty is not a deterrant; if it was, America (and other countries where CP is employed) would be murder free, surely? Not at all. It might well only deter people bent on pre-meditated murder, i.e. violent criminals. (Just the people we'd like to see deterred.) It's a very tricky question, this CP thing. As I've got older I've become more ethically pragmatic and less of an idealist. (Is this the same thing as becoming more rightwing?!). I know the arguments, but I'm still not convinced that the death penalthy for the worst crimes---child rape-murder, serial murder---the kind of crimes, that is, where the person cannot be let out for reasons of public safety, is not appropriate. I'm not sure that spending vast amounts of taxpayers' money to keep highly dangerous, untreatable psychopaths alive is really a good idea. I'd rather see their prison space go to someone more deserving It also makes me reflect that none of us are Christians: we don't have to go in for the sentimental idea that anyone can be redeemed and forgiven, or has infinite worth before God, if given enough time to think about how naughty they've been. Or we might say: anyone can redeem themselves, yes, but these individuals (those guilty of the most grotesque crimes) have forfeited the right to having time in which to try.
|
|
|
Post by dreamguardian on Nov 17, 2009 11:00:42 GMT -1
I have always believed that life means life, i.e. if someone takes a life then they spend that life in prison. I am one who would want revenge in that I would like to see the criminal suffer: isolation, bare minimum provisions and a liftime to meditate and contemplate their actions - no parole. If someone committed ( Real nasty stuff ) attrocities on someone I love. I personally would very much want revenge & not interested in them meditating on their actions. The main reason we don't have it now It's not about deterent, for me. Our current system isn't effective either. I agree
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Nov 17, 2009 11:26:55 GMT -1
I have always believed that life means life, i.e. if someone takes a life then they spend that life in prison. I am one who would want revenge in that I would like to see the criminal suffer: isolation, bare minimum provisions and a liftime to meditate and contemplate their actions - no parole. If someone committed ( Real nasty stuff ) attrocities on someone I love. I personally would very much want revenge & not interested in them meditating on their actions. Which is one reason that conviction and judgement of a criminal should not be the responsibility of the victim or those close to them. In societies where we see that permitted we see a very slippery slope to the paediatrician being stoned to death by a dyslexic, baying mob. Grief and pain do not give the victim's opinions and desires more credence or validity. The community needs to decide how it believes those who have overstepped the mark should be treated, though I do think that a significant part of that is that justice *must be seen to be done*, so that there can be some satisfaction and ownership by the greater community. I think cost was mentioned in an earlier post. Bear in mind that in the US, a country with states that have what would probably be pretty close to anything we could introduce now, the process of seeking the death penalty, review and appeal is hugely expensive, feeding a vast industry of legal activity (this was quite interesting www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty). The sort of appeal safeguards that they have in the US would be unavoidable in anything remotely resembling a civilised legal system. Far cheaper to have life means life sentences with our current systems of appeal IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Heron on Nov 17, 2009 19:44:48 GMT -1
I think the problem here is where is the line to be drawn beyond which CP comes into play? Different people will want to draw it in different places. It's easy enough for sensible and reasonable people to say to each other 'of course it's only for those irredeemably evil people' but once CP is an option on the punishment tariff the lynch mob mentality will increasingly turn to it as the right punishment for whomever is 'beyond the pale'. Those who painted the door of a paediatrician would not stop to ask questions and social hysteria should not be allowed the ultimate fulfilment. I feel that the option being 'on the table' ratchets up the options for social vengeance.
I wouldn't say say that I could rule out taking the ultimate vengeance into my own hands given sufficient provocation. But I do fear it as a social instrument.
|
|
|
Post by Sìle on Nov 17, 2009 20:38:04 GMT -1
I am one who would want revenge in that I would like to see the criminal suffer: isolation, bare minimum provisions and a liftime to meditate and contemplate their actions - no parole. I don't think my thoughts on this were clear enough in my earlier post, given one of the responses. If a criminal were to spend 50 odd years in isolation ~ no human contact, enough food and water to keep them alive, minimum exercise (perhaps a weekly walk in the open air), no entertainment (tv, radio, books, writing materials) etc. ~ some might consider this torture. I wouldn't. I would consider they are existing; nothing more; a wasted life if you will for the life they lay to waste.
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Nov 17, 2009 20:47:02 GMT -1
I am one who would want revenge in that I would like to see the criminal suffer: isolation, bare minimum provisions and a liftime to meditate and contemplate their actions - no parole. I don't think my thoughts on this were clear enough in my earlier post, given one of the responses. If a criminal were to spend 50 odd years in isolation ~ no human contact, enough food and water to keep them alive, minimum exercise (perhaps a weekly walk in the open air), no entertainment (tv, radio, books, writing materials) etc. ~ some might consider this torture. I wouldn't. I would consider they are existing; nothing more; a wasted life if you will for the life they lay to waste. Problem with that is the same as the death penalty... if they win on appeal, you will likely be releasing some driven genuinely insane. And if one allows torture (this would most certainly be defined as torture)... the same slippery boundary line creeps in... it becomes OK to beat Iraqui's because they harboured an insurgency (ir did they fight an occupation?) When we picture a hideous crime, we can all see in our minds eye the just deserts of the perpetrator, the child rapist, the murderer, and the thought of their torture/death can be a massively gratifying one. But a system that could justify the torture and death of one unjustly convicted man or woman is a system I will fight to the last. Life for life, certainly, and with the well researched psychological bare minimum necessary to keep health physically and mentally, possibly, in some cases where the actions are so beyond the pale that society will accept no rehabilitation. Then we might have been free from the repeated publicity of Hindley and currently Brady. But not torture.
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Nov 17, 2009 21:03:19 GMT -1
If they can provide a system that can provide a case that is watertight, with no place for error, then CP becomes an option. However, that particular scenario is highly unlikely. So, what could be an alternative? Well, if you have taken a life, then you must be prepared to do something to atone for it. It is my opinion that a person convicted of a serious crime should have their rights diminished, as per Sile's suggestion. They should be made to work to pay for their captivity and I also believe that they should be forced to do work in the community affected by their actions, obviously under supervision.
RR
|
|