John Venables released again!!

[fbsf]

Didn't we do that about 200+ years ago in Oceania?

 

[hypnoticmonkey]

Didn't we do that about 200+ years ago in Oceania?

Aren't we at war with Eurasia?

 

[Jeltz]

Didn't we do that about 200+ years ago in Oceania?

Aren't we at war with Eurasia?

Wern't they a band form the late 80's?

 

[graysalchemy]

Didn't we do that about 200+ years ago in Oceania?

Aren't we at war with Eurasia?

Wern't they a band form the late 80's?

Yes and so they should have been :lol: :lol:

 

[markmark]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Es9XrKTT ... r_embedded

[youtube:1whxwov8]Es9XrKTTc_4[/youtube:1whxwov8]

edited by graysalchemy we have a youtube feature now

 

[asd]

The idea of a prison island isn't bad though...find a remote island, secure it so that noone gets on or off and then just airdrop in all those who commit the most heinous crimes? A weekly supply drop would suffice and leave them to sort themselves out? You never know some of them might actually like it there? And the rest of society can get on with things knowing that they're not a threat anymore...?

I'll go with this idea, you'd get my vote ;-)

BB

That was tried - it was called Australia.

S

 

[Apricorn]

You forgot to answer the other bit about it perhaps being your son/daughter/relative Barnsley Brewer??

Markmark, what if it was your innocent 2 year old son/daughter/relative that had been abducted, beaten, sexually abused, a heavy iron bar dropped on their head, fracturing their skull, followed by by being laid over a train track with their head buried in rubble to prevent them from escaping, and subsequently cut in two by a train?
The 2 year old child that you loved and nurtured.
Are the feelings of the perpetrator's family relevant in comparison?

 

[markmark]

You forgot to answer the other bit about it perhaps being your son/daughter/relative Barnsley Brewer??

Markmark, what if it was your innocent 2 year old son/daughter/relative that had been abducted, beaten, sexually abused, a heavy iron bar dropped on their head, fracturing their skull, followed by by being laid over a train track with their head buried in rubble to prevent them from escaping, and subsequently cut in two by a train?
The 2 year old child that you loved and nurtured.
Are the feelings of the perpetrator's family relevant in comparison?

It is impossible to answer this with any certainty; you don't really know how you would react until you are actually in that position I guess.
Of course I would want the perpetrator(s) to be caught and punished.....but the death sentence?? No, sorry....not from me. At least that's how I feel just now, and I would hope that I've a strong enough and decent enough charachter to see that position through.
As I said in the Creegan thread, the death penalty just reduces us down to their level. It's retribution; not punishment.

 

[calumscott]

It's retribution; not punishment.

One could argue that it is also deterrent. Something that many (including me) is lacking somewhat in the judiciary.

That said, I also believe that sentencing on the whole is too soft, I believe that we have gone a little to far to the rehabilitation and not hard enough on the punishment.

While its true to say that a rehabilitated criminal is better and cheaper than an un-rehabilitated criminal, making people scared of becoming a criminal in the first place is better and cheaper still. Make the punishment really awful as a deterrent and the rehabilitation really good so that both in conjunction make the criminal realise that the straight and narrow is the only answer.

 

[hypnoticmonkey]

It's retribution; not punishment.

One could argue that it is also deterrent. Something that many (including me) is lacking somewhat in the judiciary.

One could, and if one did, one would be spouting absolute tosh.

While I am vehemently opposed to the death penalty, and to the idea of retribution in our criminal justice system, I respect the arguments of those who push for it in a retribution/punishment context.

Anyone who argues it as a deterrent is just ignoring the obvious truth - countries that have it don't have lower crime rates. Often, they have higher ones. Rather than resting on evidence and fact, those who claim it is a deterrent prefer the rather less solid 'instinct' which says that if there's a risk of death, people should be less inclined to commit crimes, not that they will be less inclined to commit crimes.

The fact is, and I say this having read research on it from all of criminology, criminal law, political and psychological perspectives, that people tend no to respond and adjust their behaviour on the severity of the punishment, but rather that likelihood[\i] of getting punished.

This remains true even down to driving offences. People, on the whole, won't speed less if we up the penalty to 6 points and a £75 fine, but they will if you put more speed cameras in.

 

[markmark]

It is nothing approaching any sort of deterant IMO calumscott.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... icide_rate

 

[graysalchemy]

There was a good article on the BBC website about the The Military Corrective Training Centre (MCTC) in Colchester. After detainees are released only 8% re offend compared to the 25% comming out of HMP's. There is a more strict regime and work ethic something which lacks in HMP's. Perhaps this is a model which should be used.

However deterrent is a good idea but the death penalty is not a deterrent as is seen in America and was also the view of Albert Pierrepoint.

 

[hypnoticmonkey]

However deterrent is a good idea but the death penalty is not a deterrent as is seen in America and was also the view of Albert Pierrepoint.

Deterrent can mean much more than "scaring people into not doing something" and "scaring people into not doing something" can mean much more than "killing them if they do".

Using the driving example, putting more speed cameras in would act as a better deterrent than upping the penalty, because it isn't the penalty that puts people off it's the chance of getting caught. So in that sense speed cameras act as a deterrent. (Curiously, given I'm liberal by nature and can't stand CCTV, I have no truck whatsoever with speed cameras! I'm one of those people who 95% of the time will refuse to break the speed limit and I get genuinely frustrated by those who do!)

But there are also other senses of deterrent... like the kind of youth projects the police engage in here in Solihull (they run a football coaching scheme themselves, they fund cricket coaching, they regularly attend the skate park to engage with the kids etc) which give young kids an obvious alternative to crime. Using the driving analogy, better driving tests, safety courses and even perhaps regular testing would 'deter' people from speeding in as much as it would stop them from doing it in the first place.

In my mind, these are much better deterrents than those which drag us down to the moral basement of 'justice', such as killing people that kill people.

 

[calumscott]

One could, and if one did, one would be spouting absolute tosh.

Really? The weight of the punishment handed down has NO bearing on a decision to act in a particular way???

Not buying that.

Speeding... Your argument is completely flawed as exemplified by Swindon. Cameras ripped out, average speeds down, speed related accidents down.

Regardless - if we disregard the method of detection of the offence, I am more likely not to give a stuff about breaking the speed limit if the punishment is a twenty quid fine and you'll tell my Mum. Make that punishment a £200 fine and having to drive a 1988 Metro for a year and I'm far less likely to break the law.

Death penalty argument is far more nebulous (or rather it was in the past) where the types of people (and the cases we've discussed are prime examples) who would find themselves in those realms tend to be psychopathic. Deterrent has no effect.

Now consider the less psychopathic murderers - particularly gang members - not lone psychopaths, people who were it not for the pack mentality ordinarily would not find themselves with the urge to go killing people. I put it that THOSE people could be deterred by the demonstration of sufficiently punitive sentencing.

 

[markmark]

Death penalty argument is far more nebulous (or rather it was in the past) where the types of people (and the cases we've discussed are prime examples) who would find themselves in those realms tend to be psychopathic. Deterrent has no effect.

Are you suggesting that we round up all the psycopaths and kill them? Just to be on the safe side? (apologies if I've mis-interpreted that, but that's how it reads to me)

 

[Megaross]

So, what do we do with him?? :wha:

Human shield for the armed police/ army?

 

[Tony]

I can never truly decide which side of the fence I stand on this issue - especially since I've had kids.

The part of me which is predominantly father, would argue for full and total retribution. If someone took the life of one of my children I'd probably consider taking theirs myself - regaqrdless of the consequences and somewhat double-standards.

The part of me which is humanitarian would stress the need for a more measured approach, the approach which should be expected of a progressive and civilised society. I cannot separate the opposing aspects of my personality because that's what my personality is.

I think the boils down to: mess with my kids and I'll rip your effin head off!

 

[Jeltz]

The biggest issue I have with case is that 2 children committed a crime against one younger child.

I believe that I am more responsible for the behaviour of my children than they are up to about 12-13. I don't believe that anyone is born that evil.

I will never agree with the death penalty as mistakes happen and although you can compensate someone you can't un-kill them. When I have said that in the past people have said, well then only for those people where there is absolutely no question, to which I say that all convictions have to be beyond any reasonable doubt. Just look at the case of Barri White, how many others who protest their innocence are telling the truth?

 

[bobsbeer]

I think the White case is a good example of why the death penalty is suspect on every level. No doubt at the time of conviction all thought it was an open and shut case. And by now he would be dead. I know there are cases such as the army guy killed in public on tv. But the perpetrators probably want to be martyrs. Do we give them what they want? I don't believe any case is open and shut to the point where society kills them.

 

[hypnoticmonkey]

One could, and if one did, one would be spouting absolute tosh.

Really? The weight of the punishment handed down has NO bearing on a decision to act in a particular way???

Not buying that.

You have been provided with examples which show that death penalty =/= lower crime rates. Buy it or not, it's the fact.

Regardless - if we disregard the method of detection of the offence, I am more likely not to give a stuff about breaking the speed limit if the punishment is a twenty quid fine and you'll tell my Mum. Make that punishment a £200 fine and having to drive a 1988 Metro for a year and I'm far less likely to break the law.

As I said, there's a distinction between the instinctive response of "yes, I'm sure that would stop me doing it" and the actual real world effect that, actually, no it doesn't. You can think as much as you like, the truth is: it doesn't. There's evidence to prove it, but as I don't have access to law libraries anymore, I rather (conveniently, you might think :P) can't find it.